Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?

[Valerie]

I like the process we have if followed correctly. I believe there is wisdom in the process.

Long ago we did not have drug cartels, sex trafficking, & terrorists wanting to harm Americans. After 9/11 we were informed of all the terrorists cells in our country that pose a threat. Some of those involved in 9/11 even got truck driving training in my own city!

For this reason I support careful vetting and process so we know whose entering inn& why.

I love the example of Vietnamese refugees. We welcome d them in the 70s and 80s helped them and in turn they became hard-working law abiding citizens contributing to society not draining society. I knew many and I admired them greatly. My heart went out to their situation. They fled from and they were wonderful people. They also NEVER bashed America but were grateful. The government helped them get started in some ways but they hit the ground running and were working hard. There were several in my engineering department that I got to know well we became friends and they had fantastic work ethics.

I am an Irish and Scottish descent mostly and I’ll tell you the Irish that came over from Ireland were treated terrible, but they were hard-working people and worked under the worst conditions. They did not come here expecting to be supported. I think that is important.

[ohio jones]

This thread is bordering on the edge of politics. If that continues, we will move it to the Politics section.

[barnhart]

I am an Irish and Scottish descent mostly and I’ll tell you the Irish that came over from Ireland were treated terrible, but they were hard-working people and worked under the worst conditions. They did not come here expecting to be supported. I think that is important.

Do you realize what ingredients go into a statement like that?

[Bootstrap]

I'm going to focus on responding to what is not political. On democracy, I will say this one thing: we both value democracy, and we both want to give Americans the ability to speak out, we have different notions on how best to measure what Americans want and how to foster democracy. But it's hard to explore that any further in this thread without getting into politics.

Where I disagree more fundamentally is this: the prophets repeatedly address rulers, laws, and public practices that harm the poor and the sojourner. I don’t see Jesus remaining silent when vulnerable people are harmed, and I find it especially troubling when clear cruelty is defended in the name of Christian values. That seems to be at the heart of our disagreement.

The New Testament simply does not teach that we need to have government policy of open borders. It doesn't teach governments can't engage in detention and removal of people according to immigration laws. The New Testament's commentary on interactions with the law is to make sure you are persecuted for righteousness' sake, not for actual lawbreaking.

I find it troubling how the Bible is misused as a tool to proof-text why your political views are right. We've gone round and round about selectively quoting the Levitical law to support a desired political position, which I think is really not good.

First off, when I did a careful overview of biblical teaching, including both the Old Testament and New Testament, I don’t think you engaged with the substance of what I laid out. And the charge of “proof-texting” doesn’t seem to fit what I was actually doing. I do not believe Christians are under Old Testament law either. The one-liners are not true or fair.

I think the Bible as a whole, including the New Testament, teaches a particular concern for the vulnerable, the outsider, and the refugee. I see Jesus standing up for foreigners that the Jews despised. And if I ask what it means to be the hands and feet of Jesus, guided by what he said and did, I think that does mean standing up for people who are being treated badly.

You also know that I am not saying we need to have a government policy of open borders. But I do think that Christians should stand up for people to be treated humanely, especially the weak and the vulnerable. Refugees definitely fall into that category. And I also think that Christians belong to a Kingdom that does not draw walls based on ethnic background. I think that affects the way we live in the world around us, what we advocate, what we warn against.

Finally, I’m confused by how this plays out in practice. You are very engaged in public debate on this issue — and on other political issues as well. So I don’t actually see you as silent about government policy. If avoiding political advocacy is the principle, I would expect to see it applied consistently, across issues and on all sides.

I'm not really engaged in this debate anywhere except on MN, and I'm mostly engaged in it because, despite their being a Politics subforum on MN, these political topics seem to constantly pop up in other subforums on MN. I decided there isn't some rule or law or code of ethics that requires me to be silent about my opinions whilst others sanctimoniously prattle on.

I do not have any influence over public policy and I very much doubt those who do are listening to my opinions.

I don't think the Bible sanctifies "my opinions", most of the teaching on the tongue tells me to be discerning about what I say. To me, the opinions I want to express are the ones that are most in keeping with biblical values. The ones most like Jesus.

And that means values that protect the vulnerable, including refugees. Values that reject violence against them, tearing up their families, treating them with policies and rhetoric that result in real harm, family separation, and the normalization of cruelty.

I know we won’t resolve this here, but I hope it’s clear that my concern comes from wanting to follow Jesus well. I’m grateful we can have these conversations as fellow Christians, even when we disagree. If we want to be peacemakers, if we want to be salt and light, I think the chaos and violence and confusion all around us is our chance to shine.

[JohnH]

And that means values that protect the vulnerable, including refugees. Values that reject violence against them, tearing up their families, treating them with policies and rhetoric that result in real harm, family separation, and the normalization of cruelty.

This is akin to saying you’re opposed to clubbing puppies to death. Of course we can all agree on the above.

Where we disagree is what policies can best realise what you listed above. And I’d like you to stop just assuming anyone who has different policy opinions than you wants to (for example) “harm refugees” or “normalize cruelty”.

To give an example: I don’t want to “tear up families”. That does not mean, however, that I think the entire world population should be granted permanent residence in the United States. Despite the fact that ultimately, the entire world is related to each other, is one big family, and everyone has immediate family who are immediate family with someone else and eventually encompasses the whole world.

Likewise, I think offering temporary refuge is commendable. But I think temporary refuge should be temporary. I don’t think it’s cruel or harmful to end something temporary.

Does that make sense?

[Ernie]

I am an Irish and Scottish descent mostly and I’ll tell you the Irish that came over from Ireland were treated terrible, but they were hard-working people and worked under the worst conditions. They did not come here expecting to be supported. I think that is important.

All the immigrants I know came here expecting to work hard, and I think this is good. Being treated terribly is not good, no matter what era people immigrate.
There are obviously some immigrants in America who expect to be "supported", but I do not like to lump them in with the large majority who are here to work hard. That would not be good.
My immigrant ancestors who came here to work hard would not have thought it good, if the folks here before them had made sweeping statements such as "immigrants expect to be supported."
So I think it is good to distinguish between the minority who expected to be supported and the majority who are glad to work hard.

[mike]

I am an Irish and Scottish descent mostly and I’ll tell you the Irish that came over from Ireland were treated terrible, but they were hard-working people and worked under the worst conditions. They did not come here expecting to be supported. I think that is important.

All the immigrants I know came here expecting to work hard, and I think this is good. Being treated terribly is not good, no matter what era people immigrate.
There are obviously some immigrants in America who expect to be "supported", but I do not like to lump them in with the large majority who are here to work hard. That would not be good.
My immigrant ancestors who came here to work hard would not have thought it good, if the folks here before them had made sweeping statements such as "immigrants expect to be supported."
So I think it is good to distinguish between the minority who expected to be supported and the majority who are glad to work hard.

Yesterday I unloaded a truck and noticed the driver had either a Ukrainian or Russian accent, so I asked, and he was Russian. He said he left Russia when the war started three years ago because he didn't like Putin. I've met a lot more Ukrainian drivers than Russian, and they usually say they fled Ukraine to avoid military conscription. Three years later he is driving truck in the USA, and although I assume he's making low wages, he probably is supporting himself well. It's been 31 years since I was in Kiev, but I still remember a handful of Russian words, so I tried them out on him. His eyes really lit up and we had a good laugh.

[JohnH]

All the immigrants I know came here expecting to work hard, and I think this is good.

I have met immigrants who are hard workers, ones who are average, ones who are outright lazy, and ones which were both incompetent and perpetual liars/scam artists.

Just like you’d expect from people in general.

I once had a contract job where I got called up to evaluate a programmer’s work who happened to be an immigrant on an H-1B dual intent visa. The quality was terrible and I had to conclude her resume was fabricated. Not pleasant at all. The person that preceded her (also an immigrant on an H-1B) got fired because he had an anger problem. I had originally been contracted for the job, but the contract agency tried to bait and switch the contract terms after I’d been there a week, and I refused to let them do that.

So after two “duds” the client asked for me back (via a different agency). I guess someone could say I was an immigrant too. Of course, I’ve been lazy before and angry before, although usually not on the job.

Being treated terribly is not good, no matter what era people immigrate.

Yes. I don’t think most sincere Christians want to see that.

Lots of non-Christians want to see their enemies and rivals treated terribly. I worked with an Iranian/Persian who one explained to me in detail what he wanted to happen to the Ayatollah regime. I also have gotten to hear both Pakistanis and (Hindu) Indians explain why they don’t like the other at all and wish them misfortune, etc etc

All the more reason all need to accept Christ.

There are obviously some immigrants in America who expect to be "supported", but I do not like to lump them in with the large majority who are here to work hard. That would not be good.

Statistics are available of how many people from various countries become a “public charge”. The current administration suspended visas from countries that produced a lot of these (seemingly around a ⅓ threshold), along with a high amount of visa overstays. You can see the list here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ed-states/

Generally speaking (legal) immigrants are public charges at a fairly high rate, although this shouldn’t be surprising. America has very generous welfare benefits. For example, Somali migrants in Minnesota are in public assistance at a rate of around 81%, versus 21% of native-born households (from a study by the Center for Immigration Studies). It is worth considering these statistics instead of dismissing them as if they aren’t real or something.

My immigrant ancestors who came here to work hard would not have thought it good, if the folks here before them had made sweeping statements such as "immigrants expect to be supported."
So I think it is good to distinguish between the minority who expected to be supported and the majority who are glad to work hard.

When the majority of an immigrant group is on public assistance, is it correct to say “the minority who expect to be supported”?

I think it is also misleading to claim immigrants are “glad to work hard” more so than any other class of people. Some do. Some are lazy. Some find ways to avoid working hard. It’s human nature.

[Bootstrap]

This is akin to saying you’re opposed to clubbing puppies to death. Of course we can all agree on the above.

Where we disagree is what policies can best realise what you listed above. And I’d like you to stop just assuming anyone who has different policy opinions than you wants to (for example) “harm refugees” or “normalize cruelty”.

I don't just assume that. And I don't usually focus on portraying other people in the conversation in any particular way, I am trying to focus on the subject.

If I say "wow, they are clubbing puppies to death", the other person's reaction does give me some clues, though, and I imagine other people also make some guesses about the other person.

To give an example: I don’t want to “tear up families”. That does not mean, however, that I think the entire world population should be granted permanent residence in the United States. Despite the fact that ultimately, the entire world is related to each other, is one big family, and everyone has immediate family who are immediate family with someone else and eventually encompasses the whole world.

So you think immigrant families should be kept together and given ways to stay together even if they are apprehended and deported? I agree.

Sometimes I have felt that people have either denied that families have been separated or implied that it serves them right.

Likewise, I think offering temporary refuge is commendable. But I think temporary refuge should be temporary. I don’t think it’s cruel or harmful to end something temporary.

Does that make sense?

And for some people, temporary refuge is a very reasonable approach. I think there are times that permanent refuge makes a lot more sense, the scariest governments remain scary for a very long time.

But treating people and families humanely is HUGE for me no matter what the policy is.

[JohnH]

So you think immigrant families should be kept together and given ways to stay together even if they are apprehended and deported? I agree.

I think it is a tough job to do but needs to be done to ascertain who the immediate family even is, and then take measures to ensure children remain with the parent or parents who is their usual custodial parent.

A lot of human trafficking situations happen which is one reason I believe such laws and borders are needed - it’s about protecting the vulnerable.

Sometimes I have felt that people have either denied that families have been separated or implied that it serves them right.

I don’t think that. However, separating an illegal alien from a U.S. citizen child is a legal tactic that can be used by the illegal alien to try to get more favourable treatment. I don’t like that, but ultimately some parents choose to leave their children here with a relative who can then collect in generous welfare programs. (A U.S. citizen child is worth approx. $5k-$10k a year in benefits.) Given the law does allow that, it can’t be stopped, but I disagree with the portrayal of it as if the government is separating families.

And for some people, temporary refuge is a very reasonable approach. I think there are times that permanent refuge makes a lot more sense, the scariest governments remain scary for a very long time.

The government has a lot more leeway to designate temporary protected status. So it has been quite generous.

Permanent refugee status is subject to overall caps and quotas for all immigrants total, and the question becomes how to allocate that fairly. Many people wait decades for their turn. I think the U.S. should focus on refugees nearest its borders - basically Mexico which is currently a safe country (or at least as safe as America is).

But treating people and families humanely is HUGE for me no matter what the policy is.

Yes. I don’t think any reasonable people are opposed to that. ICE, USCIS, and CBP have a difficult job to do.

I have an easier job to do. I can encourage migrants who may have entered without inspection or overstayed a visa how to avoid becoming a target for removal, such as:

- avoid driving a vehicle with obvious problems like expired tags, no insurance, busted tail lights
- avoid routes with heavy police presence
- avoid speeding, weaving or other excuses to get pulled over (no valid licence = major troubles if you get pulled over.)
- don’t associate with immigrants, or citizens, who are criminals or run in such circles

And of course the one I can’t convince any of them to do: stop carrying around a cellphone with Facebook installed that is constantly broadcasting your location to any government agency that wants the data!

I do live in a red state where local and state government has cooperated with the federal government. This actually means better more humane treatment of migrants, as they can focus on finding their highest priorities for removal.

U.S. citizens destroying a hotel in Minneapolis doesn’t make much sense to me and doesn’t seem like it helps migrants at all.