mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is the solution for emigration from failed states to bar that emigration or to encourage more liberal immigration policies?

Trump allegedly called much of Africa and Central America "#@???~@'"

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42664173

The sentiment behind the alleged statement seems to be that accepting immigrants from such countries drags down the quality of life for Americans and therefore such immigration should not happen.

1) Was trump right in his description of these countries being sub standard compared to the USA?
2) Does emigration of the best and brightest of such nations benefit those countries?
3) Do immigrants contribute more than they take from the countries they immigrate into?
4) What can be done to help these countries reform and improve their own economies
5) Is this a lack of compassion on Trumps part, a sort of Mammon worship or common sense?

This is not just an issue for the USA but for Europe also as vast numbers of economic migrants seek entry from failed states in Africa and in the Middle East. Most European countries have restrictions on economic migration.
 

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You have to help people where they are. you can bring in 500,000,000 immigrants tomorrow and it will be a drop in the bucket as the amount of people considered extremely poor (those that survive on a few bucks a month) is staggering. Birth rates are exceptionally high in these country. You bring one in, 5 more replace them through birth.
Mass migration is bad for every nation. Mass migration of rich people to poor nations is bad as is the standard poor to more industrialized. I am a first generation american everyone of my relatives under the age of 50 is an immigrant, i also have family members that have migrated to Canada, other parts of Europe and Australia, and i'm actually NOT thankful.
Reason is where my parents come from its really not that bad. The mass migration has caused a tremendous brain drain in the country which actually fuels more immigration. You also have the erosion of the (good aspects) of the culture due to the staggering amount of successful immigrants going back who have assimilated into the materialistic aspects of western culture and attempt to influence the politics and social beliefs of the natives (aka, promotion of secularism, nominalism, materialism, feminism, etc)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

Another Lazarus

Old Newbie
Sep 19, 2013
2,717
1,050
✟49,808.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The corrupt leaders of nations impoverish their people. A few people who spend their nation budget for their stomach and neglect their people, these are the source of their poverty
and these corrupt leaders need to be exterminated to settle this immigration problem.

 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is only one species of human being, not two, not three, not ten.

One.

ALL people are made in the image of God, regardless of race, colour, faith or anything else. ALL of us.

See Genesis for further details.

As a creationist I can say we all come from the same person and are therefore equal by heritage as well as redemption and eternal future. But that does not mean that the cultures we have created are of equal worth or degree of functionality. So understanding the equal potential and worth of people does not change the basic question of whether or not mass migration from failed cultures to successful ones is a solution to anything. Local aid programmes or immigration are morally neutral in this respect. So what is your point?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Babe Ruth
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The corrupt leaders of nations impoverish their people. A few people who spend their nation budget for their stomach and neglect their people, these are the source of their poverty
and these corrupt leaders need to be exterminated to settle this immigration problem.


So your solution is a return to Western imperialism or assassination squads to take out bad leaders or new draconian powers for a world court?
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have to help people where they are. you can bring in 500,000,000 immigrants tomorrow and it will be a drop in the bucket as the amount of people considered extremely poor (those that survive on a few bucks a month) is staggering. Birth rates are exceptionally high in these country. You bring one in, 5 more replace them through birth.
Mass migration is bad for every nation. Mass migration of rich people to poor nations is bad as is the standard poor to more industrialized. I am a first generation american everyone of my relatives under the age of 50 is an immigrant, i also have family members that have migrated to Canada, other parts of Europe and Australia, and i'm actually NOT thankful.
Reason is where my parents come from its really not that bad. The mass migration has caused a tremendous brain drain in the country which actually fuels more immigration. You also have the erosion of the (good aspects) of the culture due to the staggering amount of successful immigrants going back who have assimilated into the materialistic aspects of western culture and attempt to influence the politics and social beliefs of the natives (aka, promotion of secularism, nominalism, materialism, feminism, etc)

That is an interesting comment. Not everything about Western culture is beneficial. In the UK immigrants are often more religious for instance than the indigenous people. That is a useful corrective to a secular culture. But so also as you say the return rich secularised immigrants to their host countries may sometimes mean that their new riches give them power to secularise those cultures. Also the effect of the best and brightest leaving a country cannot be underestimated. There is something parasitic about the British health service which is so dependent on foreign trained nurses and doctors for instance. With better domestic training this would not be so necessary.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
As a creationist I can say we all come from the same person and are therefore equal by heritage as well as redemption and eternal future. But that does not mean that the cultures we have created are of equal worth or degree of functionality. So understanding the equal potential and worth of people does not change the basic question of whether or not mass migration from failed cultures to successful ones is a solution to anything. Local aid programmes or immigration are morally neutral in this respect. So what is your point?

My point is that treating any people as sub human is unBiblical. We don't have equal POTENTIAL value, we have equal ACTUAL value. That is what Genesis tells us.

ALL are made in the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The corrupt leaders of nations impoverish their people. A few people who spend their nation budget for their stomach and neglect their people, these are the source of their poverty
and these corrupt leaders need to be exterminated to settle this immigration problem.


Sorry but corruption has very little with the disfunction you see in these photos. This is a moral problem and those residing there know it. Polygamy run rampant, you can go to Iraq or North Korea or war torn Syria and never sea anything like this.
 
Upvote 0

Another Lazarus

Old Newbie
Sep 19, 2013
2,717
1,050
✟49,808.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So your solution is a return to Western imperialism or assassination squads to take out bad leaders or new draconian powers for a world court?
Its the duty of the people of the poor countries to eradicate their corrupt leaders and officers, western intereference aims for their own pocket.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point is that treating any people as sub human is unBiblical. We don't have equal POTENTIAL value, we have equal ACTUAL value. That is what Genesis tells us.

ALL are made in the image of God.

Yes but it comes down to what you mean by that. There is no equivalence between good and evil, people have different levels of gifts, some people are not saved and have no future and so are not equivalent to believers who have both these things. In the bible there is neither equality of outcome or opportunity in this life nor is it recommended e.g. Parable of the Talents.

Yes all humanity should be respected cause it bears Gods image and yes Christians are called to action when faced with absolute poverty and oppression of their brothers and sisters. But a pagan from a dysfunctional godless culture has less real value in practice than a Christian from a functional culture. Yes all people are equal before the law but some people and some cultures are toxic and others uplifting.

There has been a lack of reality and discrimination about this topic for some time and actually I am grateful for Trumps complete insensitive to politically correct norms. It is a time for renewal not deadening diplomacy.

The immigration debate hinges around two main questions in my view? Are we obliged to help economic immigrants find a new home and what should we do about that? One answer is to build a wall and shut people out, another to build a wall and help people where they live. Another option is to let them all in? A fourth option is have some common sense and control about how immigration works and let only approved people in. My preferred option is the fourth combined with a more developed Aid budget to help people in their indigenous countries.
 
Upvote 0

T-seven

Member
Aug 30, 2017
22
22
Johannesburg
✟10,179.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The big problem with assisting the immigrants home nation is that you perpetuate the lifespan of their bad government.

Furthermore, if you look at Zimbabwe, the only reason Robert Mugabe was able to stay in power for so long - even with his failed economy - is that millions of Zimbabweans poured across the South African border and propped up his government with the money they sent home.

Had we in South Africa enforced stricter border control and allowed only the educated who could contribute to the betterment of our nation, the racist dictator Mugabe would have fallen a long time ago.
South Africa has been criticized because of the xenophobic violence against the illegals - our own fault our government hardly did anything to prevent the illegal immigrants coming in.

This nation is a ticking time bomb, the majority of the nation wants them out.
I honestly don't believe anyone beyond our borders understands the real mood of the people.
Its more a case of forced tolerance than one of holding hands and singing kumbaya.

One of the biggest problems with first world countries is that they think Africa is just like them, we're not.
The African political mentality revolves around which tribe is the strongest and that's it.
And once the person is in they will fight tooth and nail to stay there and do nothing but enrich themselves and oppress the people.
If you don't believe me then check it out for yourself.
So if President Trump did say something disparaging concerning this continent's nations he'd be right, it is what it is.

Illegal immigration is a double edged sword.
It helps the illegals but at the same time it aids their corrupt governments to remain in power and spawns their national specific criminals.
I could go on and on about the damage that is done.
Yes but doesn't Jesus want us to love everyone and be good to everyone ?
Yes of course He does but He made the nations all different too, so He believes in national identity.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
1) Was trump right in his description of these countries being sub standard compared to the USA?
2) Does emigration of the best and brightest of such nations benefit those countries?
3) Do immigrants contribute more than they take from the countries they immigrate into?
4) What can be done to help these countries reform and improve their own economies
5) Is this a lack of compassion on Trumps part, a sort of Mammon worship or common sense?

6) if certain people shouldn't be allowed in because they fit a certain criteria of which it is said that if you fit those criteria "you bring down the quality of life in america", should you then also not, for general consistency, kick americans out that also fit these criteria?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

MyOwnSockPuppet

Regeneration of myself after computer failure
Feb 22, 2013
656
315
Oxford, UK
✟180,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is an interesting comment. Not everything about Western culture is beneficial. In the UK immigrants are often more religious for instance than the indigenous people. That is a useful corrective to a secular culture.

Indeed, but it's probably worth pointing out that the national religions of the countries of birth of the three largest foreign-born groups are in fact three different religions.

But so also as you say the return rich secularised immigrants to their host countries may sometimes mean that their new riches give them power to secularise those cultures. Also the effect of the best and brightest leaving a country cannot be underestimated. There is something parasitic about the British health service which is so dependent on foreign trained nurses and doctors for instance. With better domestic training this would not be so necessary.

This is a slightly different issue, one particular political party granted more financial freedom to NHS trusts (a trust can be anything from a single hospital to half a city's worth of hospitals) if they were "profitable" (i.e. had a short to medium term expenditure below budget), and training nurses is an expensive business, so several trusts slashed their training. Of course in the long term this has royally bitten them on the backside as there were less nurses being trained than there were retiring.
This trend is being reversed, but there's quite a lead time on getting fully trained nurses, and even more on re-establishing training provision for nurses.

It's not really helped by the political party in question seeming to be trying to manouvre the NHS into a position where they can try and privatise bits of it (having first wrecked it, so the general public lose confidence in it first)
 
Upvote 0

Douger

Veteran
Oct 2, 2004
7,054
878
✟165,821.00
Faith
Christian
Really interesting topic and super relevant.
IMO, countries with difficulties but with potential for stability (like Syria, N. Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe) should be supported with aid and advisors to the government (no engaging directly with the general population which can undermine economies and cause political strife). Regime change must be foresworn for good by the entire world.
In cases of the worst of the worst, real, honest to God wrecked countries, like Haiti, and parts of Libya and Somalia, I think the people should be evacuated to wealthier nations where people can live on welfare while they adjust and children given good educations. Meanwhile the abandoned lands are turned into giant nature conservation areas. After a hundred years or so as nature reserves and carbon sinks, maybe we can try again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The big problem with assisting the immigrants home nation is that you perpetuate the lifespan of their bad government.

Furthermore, if you look at Zimbabwe, the only reason Robert Mugabe was able to stay in power for so long - even with his failed economy - is that millions of Zimbabweans poured across the South African border and propped up his government with the money they sent home.

Had we in South Africa enforced stricter border control and allowed only the educated who could contribute to the betterment of our nation, the racist dictator Mugabe would have fallen a long time ago.
South Africa has been criticized because of the xenophobic violence against the illegals - our own fault our government hardly did anything to prevent the illegal immigrants coming in.

This nation is a ticking time bomb, the majority of the nation wants them out.
I honestly don't believe anyone beyond our borders understands the real mood of the people.
Its more a case of forced tolerance than one of holding hands and singing kumbaya.

One of the biggest problems with first world countries is that they think Africa is just like them, we're not.
The African political mentality revolves around which tribe is the strongest and that's it.
And once the person is in they will fight tooth and nail to stay there and do nothing but enrich themselves and oppress the people.
If you don't believe me then check it out for yourself.
So if President Trump did say something disparaging concerning this continent's nations he'd be right, it is what it is.

Illegal immigration is a double edged sword.
It helps the illegals but at the same time it aids their corrupt governments to remain in power and spawns their national specific criminals.
I could go on and on about the damage that is done.
Yes but doesn't Jesus want us to love everyone and be good to everyone ?
Yes of course He does but He made the nations all different too, so He believes in national identity.

With Zimbabwe ,arguably ,international penalisation and sanctions worked. The country went so low that even those responsible for that fall realised it was not working. And so the military elite deposed Mugabe. South Africas weakness probably perpetuated the Mugabe regime longer than it should have lasted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
6) if certain people shouldn't be allowed in because they fit a certain criteria of which it is said that if you fit those criteria "you bring down the quality of life in america", should you then also not, for general consistency, kick americans out that also fit these criteria?

An analogy with family works here. You have no choice about continuing to love and support your own kids however useless they turn out. But you do have a choice about who you adopt into the family.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, but it's probably worth pointing out that the national religions of the countries of birth of the three largest foreign-born groups are in fact three different religions.

Yes Polish Catholics and even Muslims and Hindus can be a useful corrective to a secular culture that has lost the ability and depth to talk about God and to engage with Him.

This is a slightly different issue, one particular political party granted more financial freedom to NHS trusts (a trust can be anything from a single hospital to half a city's worth of hospitals) if they were "profitable" (i.e. had a short to medium term expenditure below budget), and training nurses is an expensive business, so several trusts slashed their training. Of course in the long term this has royally bitten them on the backside as there were less nurses being trained than there were retiring.
This trend is being reversed, but there's quite a lead time on getting fully trained nurses, and even more on re-establishing training provision for nurses.

It's not really helped by the political party in question seeming to be trying to manouvre the NHS into a position where they can try and privatise bits of it (having first wrecked it, so the general public lose confidence in it first)

This issue is more complicated that your partisan party perspective allows. The NHS does ultimately need to be managed efficiently and with a long term perspective that includes training. The bottom line assessment of a business manager in the NHS does however need to be of more than whether or not he met his budget for a single years business plan. The assessment should also be of what costs his actions have transferred on to later business plans. It was the same with the Grenville tower. A 5000 pound saving choosing the wrong kind of cladding cost many lives and made a mockery of the cost efficiencies in the budget.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really interesting topic and super relevant.
IMO, countries with difficulties but with potential for stability (like Syria, N. Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe) should be supported with aid and advisors to the government (no engaging directly with the general population which can undermine economies and cause political strife). Regime change must be foresworn for good by the entire world.
In cases of the worst of the worst, real, honest to God wrecked countries, like Haiti, and parts of Libya and Somalia, I think the people should be evacuated to wealthier nations where people can live on welfare while they adjust and children given good educations. Meanwhile the abandoned lands are turned into giant nature conservation areas. After a hundred years or so as nature reserves and carbon sinks, maybe we can try again.

The regime in North Korea not only oppresses and impoverishes its own people but exports its toxicity outside. It also carries the risk of a nuclear war! If there is a way to remove this regime then it should be done for the sake of all. The kind of stability we see there is a kind of death.

I agree Assad is probably the best of a bad bunch in Syria. But historically his regime has also exported support for terrorism in Lebanon. Also there is the thorny question of the Kurds there. They fought against the pure evil of ISIS but now both the Turks and Syrians want to destroy them. This is a people who deserve their own state but it would require Western intervention to secure that.

You seem to favour strong man regimes over the chaos that follows their removal but Gadaffi in Libya killed British citizens at Lockerbie and supported IRA terrorism and so his removal is not that problematic to me.

Organised state actors can be far more internationally toxic than the civil wars that follow them. Far more died at Sadams hand than in the chaos following that.

But you are right some cultures just fail. Haiti is a good example. But exporting its voodoo priests elsewhere might be just as problematic. A good dose of imperialism and a systematic purge of occultic activities would probably be more effective but such a solution is unthinkable in todays West.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
An analogy with family works here. You have no choice about continuing to love and support your own kids however useless they turn out. But you do have a choice about who you adopt into the family.

Only here, it doesn't concern families.
It concerns citizens.

How is it logical to refuse people in based on certain criteria, while people that are already in don't even fit the criteria?

It reminds me about a proposal from some nationalistic right wingers in Belgium... That new immigrants should do a "citizens test" and only those that pass get to stay.
They drafted this test and it leaked. A polling organizations then took it to the streets.
Over 60% of native Belgian citizens, failed this test. It makes no sense to expect immigrants to actually know the country and the law of the country BETTER then those who've lived here their entire lives and who are part of families that have lived here for generations.

So it's essentially and fundamentally unfair.
 
Upvote 0