Refugees/Migrants - "let them all in!"

[hopeforhappiness]

This was the headline of an article written by a Christian contributor to a liberal newspaper in the UK.
He says it is the right Christian response.
Is he right?

 

[brinny]

This was the headline of an article written by a Christian contributor to a liberal newspaper in the UK.
He says it is the right Christian response.
Is he right?

God is not the Author of confusion or chaos nor bedlam.

Surely he knows this?

 

[High Fidelity]

No, it's not right. We're told to respect authority and authority tells us, tells them, to seek refuge in the first safe country.

Many are not doing that. Most are not doing that.

 

[Oafman]

We should accept all genuine refugees.

We should not do the same for economic migrants, but we should do more to help improve the situations in the countries they have left. I'm not sure if this is the Christian response, but I think it should be.

No, it's not right. We're told to respect authority and authority tells us, tells them, to seek refuge in the first safe country.

This isn't practical. How can Greece take one million people? They only have a population of 10m, and by western standards, they're broke.

 

[High Fidelity]

We should accept all genuine refugees.

We should not do the same for economic migrants, but we should do more to help improve the situations in the countries they have left. I'm not sure if this is the Christian response, but I think it should be.


This isn't practical. How can Greece take one million people? They only have a population of 10m, and by western standards, they're broke.

Where are those arriving in Greece coming from? Turkey? Turkey would be the nearest safe country to these migrants. They can be sent back there.

 

[brinny]

We should accept all genuine refugees.

We should not do the same for economic migrants, but we should do more to help improve the situations in the countries they have left. I'm not sure if this is the Christian response, but I think it should be.


This isn't practical. How can Greece take one million people? They only have a population of 10m, and by western standards, they're broke.

"genuine" is the key word here. In addition, the genesis of why any "genuine" refugees are seeking help has GOT to be dealt with.

Otherwise the dam's crack that is trickling, gets bigger and finally just bursts and drowns everyone, without getting to the crux of the problem and fixing the crack in the dam before it gives way.

 

[brinny]

Where are those arriving in Greece coming from? Turkey? Turkey would be the nearest safe country to these migrants. They can be sent back there.

Actually, in thinking about what you posted, it's a feasible idea at least to consider.

(i removed the LOL! after i thought about what you posted.)

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

you know, there was a debate in Australia last year I think on this very same issue

apparently, the immigration minister at that time ( i am not sure if he still is), made this comment that caused outrage.

he essentially said that the arrangement with refugees should not be an economic upgrade, apparently many refugees who insist they want to come to Australia has refused an offer first made to them to resettle in this country in Indo-China, in a country that is not affluent, at least not by western developed countries standard, but nevertheless political stable

I was not quite sure what to make of the issue

on one hand, I can see where those refugee comes from, if it were me, there is NO WAY I want to settle in a place such Vietnam

but on the other hand, I think the immigration minister had a point, the point of refugee program is to allow refugee to get away from regions that is not stable to safety.

 

[brinny]

you know, there was a debate in Australia last year I think on this very same issue

apparently, the immigration minister at that time ( i am not sure if he still is), made this comment that caused outrage.

he essentially said that the arrangement with refugees should not be an economic upgrade, apparently many refugees who insist they want to come to Australia has refused an offer first made to them to resettle in this country in Indo-China, in a country that is not affluent, at least not by western developed countries standard, but nevertheless political stable

I was not quite sure what to make of the issue

on one hand, I can see where those refugee comes from, if it were me, there is NO WAY I want to settle in a place such Vietnam

but on the other hand, I think the immigration minister had a point, the point of refugee program is to allow refugee to get away from regions that is not stable to safety.

Indeed. Thus the need to examine the question of what a genuine "refugee" is.

 

[High Fidelity]

you know, there was a debate in Australia last year I think on this very same issue

apparently, the immigration minister at that time ( i am not sure if he still is), made this comment that caused outrage.

he essentially said that the arrangement with refugees should not be an economic upgrade, apparently many refugees who insist they want to come to Australia has refused an offer first made to them to resettle in this country in Indo-China, in a country that is not affluent, at least not by western developed countries standard, but nevertheless political stable

I was not quite sure what to make of the issue

on one hand, I can see where those refugee comes from, if it were me, there is NO WAY I want to settle in a place such Vietnam

but on the other hand, I think the immigration minister had a point, the point of refugee program is to allow refugee to get away from regions that is not stable to safety.

I think it boils down to perspective. If you're living in a country where your safety is genuinely at risk, safe haven alone should be enough.

What we're seeing in Europe is exactly what the minister is describing. The vast majority of migrants, and that's what they are, are passing through safe countries to get to the richer countries and/or the countries where they know they can get a lot for nothing, like Sweden.

I am pretty sure there is an international law that states if you're seeking asylum/refuge then you must do so in the nearest safe country. For most of these migrants passing through Turkey -- a safe country -- they're violating that and need to be sent back to the last part of the trip that let them through for them to do the same until they find themselves back in the legitimate safe country they're legally obliged to claim asylum/refuse in.

 

[brinny]

I think it boils down to perspective. If you're living in a country where your safety is genuinely at risk, safe haven alone should be enough.

What we're seeing in Europe is exactly what the minister is describing. The vast majority of migrants, and that's what they are, are passing through safe countries to get to the richer countries and/or the countries where they know they can get a lot for nothing, like Sweden.

I am pretty sure there is an international law that states if you're seeking asylum/refuge then you must do so in the nearest safe country. For most of these migrants passing through Turkey -- a safe country -- they're violating that and need to be sent back to the last part of the trip that let them through for them to do the same until they find themselves back in the legitimate safe country they're legally obliged to claim asylum/refuse in.

Exactly, sir.

Well said.

 

[High Fidelity]

A good example of people going to unnecessary lengths by using the momentum of this crisis is the father of that poor 3-year-old Syrian toddler that drowned and washed up on a beach.

They had been living in Turkey for 2 or 3 years and the wife had a sister in Canada who had sent about $7-10,000 in order to help them get to Canada so they could be safe, but against her wishes, the husband insisted and pressed on nonetheless and it got her and their child(ren) killed.

He wanted to go to Sweden to get free dental work done.

That dude should be behind bars.

 

[Oafman]

Where are those arriving in Greece coming from? Turkey? Turkey would be the nearest safe country to these migrants. They can be sent back there.

Turkey is not rich either. There are 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, and we are helping them financially in that regard. But many of these families have already been in these camps for years, and there doesn't appear to be much likelihood of them getting to return home any time soon. With the result that there are kids who will spend their whole childhoods living in tents in a giant refugee camp. They will grow up not knowing anything else.

We have all this wealth, and we have the opportunity to offer these people a better life without hugely impacting on our own standard of living, and I think we should. In addition, refugees are often young, with children or of child bearing age, so in the long run can help our economies and defuse our demographic timebombs.

Nobody ever regrets the help that was given to Jewish refugees in the 30s. In fact, the only thing we ever regret about that period is that we didn't help more of them.

 

[brinny]

A good example of people going to unnecessary lengths by using the momentum of this crisis is the father of that poor 3-year-old Syrian toddler that drowned and washed up on a beach.

They had been living in Turkey for 2 or 3 years and the wife had a sister in Canada who had sent about $7-10,000 in order to help them get to Canada so they could be safe, but against her wishes, the husband insisted and pressed on nonetheless and it got her and their child(ren) killed.

He wanted to go to Sweden to get free dental work done.

That dude should be behind bars.

God have mercy! That's outrageous! Yes, he should be behind bars.

 

[High Fidelity]

Turkey is not rich either. There are 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, and we are helping them financially in that regard. But many of these families have already been in these camps for years, and there doesn't appear to be much likelihood of them getting to return home any time soon. With the result that there are kids who will spend their whole childhoods living in tents in a giant refugee camp. They will grow up not knowing anything else.

We have all this wealth, and we have the opportunity to offer these people a better life without hugely impacting on our own standard of living, and I think we should. In addition, refugees are often young, with children or of child bearing age, so in the long run can help our economies and defuse our demographic timebombs.

Nobody ever regrets the help that was given to Jewish refugees in the 30s. In fact, the only thing we ever regret about that period is that we didn't help more of them.

I have no problem with sending aid. None at all. There are far needier people in this world than those in refugee camps in Turkey and their crisis has been going on a lot longer, but we don't do as much as we could there either.

I'd much rather help those folks than spend billions on warships or nuclear missiles, but that's not the world we live in unfortunately.

Nonetheless -- I'd gladly support the government even if they sent as much in aid to those countries that are legitimate safe havens as we would have spent on a reasonable estimate of migrants had they arrived on our shores.

 

[SkyWriting]

This was the headline of an article written by a Christian contributor to a liberal newspaper in the UK. He says it is the right Christian response. Is he right?

Provided that they subscribe to our model.

Be not a burden unto others unless you welcome others
to be a burden unto you.

 

[cats]

This was the headline of an article written by a Christian contributor to a liberal newspaper in the UK.
He says it is the right Christian response.
Is he right?

In my eyes this person has not considered the consequenses of such politics. Is it a christian response just to "be generous" no matter what the consequenses will be? I don't think there is one christian answer to todays migration crisis, but in europe if you oppose open borders, you will be called a nazi and a racist, you will loose "friends" and sometimes family, even church family, if you are not being politicaly correct an think it's a shame.

 

[hopeforhappiness]

There are many debates going on about what we should do about the migrants but what I am wanting to discuss is how the contributor felt able biblically or religiously that he could or should make such an absolutist statement. "Let them all in"
As an extra - did Christ ever turn away anybody who came to him in need?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Tag them maybe, then let them in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tagging

 

[timewerx]

This was the headline of an article written by a Christian contributor to a liberal newspaper in the UK.
He says it is the right Christian response.
Is he right?

There are lots of nice countries here in the Middle East.... Many of the refugees are from the Middle East and Africa and quite many are Muslims.

And I mean nice in relative terms. I also came from a third world country and I came to the Middle for some better milk and honey, not to settle but for work. It is nicer compared to my 3rd world country..

So why don't they come here in the Middle East?????????????????????

Since many of the refugees ARE ALREADY MUSLIMS.......They won't have problems fitting in here.... And here in the Middle East, they'll have far better opportunities to practice Islam....

So I think many of these Muslim refugees want something else apart from being a good follower of the Islamic religion.... I doubt they are wanting to convert to Christianity either. Lots of them are just hypocrites aren't they??


Sadly, God meant us to spread over the Earth. Therefore, as a Christian, you should know some boundaries. There are still lots of lush and uninhabited land on Earth, why won't they be sent there? Make a new city there with factories and offices so we could actually employ them to work and be productive.....since idle refugees are workshop of the devil!