Why don’t those who champion refugees and immigrants offer to take one in?

Gee up here in Canada they do!

We do here in my town! Quite common in California to welcome refugees. The only problem is the Federal Government won’t let them into the country.

^ Yes they do, the judges said it was unconstitutional and blocked any ban, and many have come in since.

Do your homework before you high-five your self for your “gotcha!” question.

ALL refugees coming in to the US are sponsored by local groups. Every single one has people who are personally involved to help settle new arrivals.

Every year, RefugeeOne assists approximately 2,500 refugees and immigrants of all ages, ethnic groups, faiths and backgrounds to find housing, learn the English language, acclimate to American culture…RefugeeOne’s programs are made possible through the dedicated efforts of nearly 45 staff members – many of whom were refugees themselves – and approximately 400 volunteers.

Dec 19, 2016 – Chicago parents raising funds to give refugees a new start

August 10, 2016 – As U.S. Politicians Shun Syrian Refugees, Religious Groups Embrace Them

Jan 31, 2017 – Illinois Synagogue That Sponsored Some Of Last Syrian Refugees Before Ban Fights On

Here’s a 41-page PDF listing local groups sponsoring refugees.

Temple Israel in Greenfield NH leads interfaith help for refugees

How an Ohio Town Became a Model City for Resettling Syrian Refugees

Jan 17, 2017 – Minneapolis City Council passes resolution to support Syrian refugee resettlement – The resolution comes after similar efforts in St. Paul

Refugees Welcome – If you are ready to take the next step and join us in our welcoming initiative, we invite you to see the resources below as you plan a way you can help welcome refugees in your area.

International Institute St. Louis – The International Institute of St. Louis offers comprehensive adjustment services for refugees and immigrants in our community.

Toronto LIfe – Dec 20 2016 – The Man Who Saved 200 Syrian Refugees – Jim Estill put up $1.5 million to bring 58 families to Canada

@Hypocrisy_Central That isn’t what the judges ruled. Quit making up false statements. The 9th circuit upheld the temporary stay on the administrations ban on immigration from 7 countries. The constitutionality of the Executive Order has not been determined at trial.

And, the administration has told other countries that refugees will not be accepted into the US, including ones that were to be resettled from an island off of Australia.

@Call_Me_Jay I am not talking about past efforts of last year and before, I am speaking of those protesters at airports, private dissenters who should take in a refugee if they feel they are getting an unfair deal at the terminal.

You just sit around reading about refugees or you spent minutes, hours or more gleaning info to supposedly take the protesters off the hook in taking a refugee home? ~~~

@zenvelo That isn’t what the judges ruled. Quit making up false statements.

The ruling meant that travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — as well as vetted refugees from all nations could, for now, continue to enter the country. Those foreigners had been barred by an executive order signed by the president on Jan. 27.

That is what the NY Times say, so who do you think I believe has their facts straight, you are them? I don’t need to lie.

I’d take them in happily, as long as they pay rent.

I’m kind of a refugee now too,after the last hurricane. I’m trying to find a place to live that’s the same rent as my flood prone home. I’ll probably be homeless in March. I’m hoping I can live in my parent’s camper until I can get back on my feet.

Most refugees just want to live. I can TOTALLY relate.

Possibly for the same reason fundy extremists who insist abortion is murder and wish mothers who do abort should be punished and death upon the doctors who assist them, but make absolutely no organized effort to provide homes for unwanted children. There is a huge international effort going on at this very moment and has been for years to provide homes for refugees, by many orgs— many in every country affected—but I see nothing significant on the part of anti-abortionists. And that is why even other Christians can’t take these anti-abortionists seriously. Hypocrisy holds no credibility in this world and it’s stink is repugnant to the most faithful and irreligious alike..

I will happily take one in. How do I go about it? How do they get through the airport and all the other stuff?

Find me a refugee from Syria and I have a couch and Comcast and so much frozen pizzas their eyes will bleed. Sort the paperwork and get them to my front door.

Best of luck, I could use a new friend.

You don’t even have to do the work… Just walk me through the legal means to get myself a refugee… Baby step me through it.

Due to the rigorous vetting process of refugees that our government already has in place— which is much more thorough than most all other governments regardless of the alternative facts the present administration spews to the contrary—in order to be considered as a home for refugees you must be a member of a large, US government-sanctioned volunteer organization. Individuals need not apply. Watch the film, it’s only 2 minutes and 38 seconds long.

The initial screening period takes a minimum of 2 years, longer for people from Syria. After they arrive, they must undergo continued screening by various law enforcement and national security agencies, so wherever they are living, the other individuals in that building should be prepared to be closely scrutinized by those same agencies as well.

Maybe H_C knows a loophole. Get me a Syrian refugee H_C.. You are my last hope.

Please… I have money. This was lounging on my desk for trips to the gay bar.

http://imgur.com/a/3H7rH

I can cover the financial obligation….. I NEED A refugee.. The ball is in your court.

Edit :: LOL, also my sisters cat.

The issue of the validity of an argument or position has nothing to do with either your ability or desire to enforce it.

Maybe because people simply can’t take them in. Refugees sometimes come in families, with children, an average person may not be able to take a whole family in, despite wanting to help. It’s also a financial strain; many can’t afford it.
That’s why it may be better to build shelters and asylums for them, where they could all be taken in and taken care of.
They are also on a known, limited area. It’s easier to take track of them if they are all together on the same place, rather than scattered around. It’s easier to document them and give them adequate help, and protect them as well. You wouldn’t like to live in a foreign country with no cover, help, and away from your own people, especially of you’re a refugee.
Also, there is way less people willing to take a refugee, or anyone else, in their home, than there are actual refugees coming to the country.

I’m speaking from my country’s perspective.

I can take in a whole family…. I can get a big house. Rent is cheap here if I go out a bit. 1200 for a massive 5 bedroom house is only 5 miles away.

I don’t often praise religious groups, but the protests against the President’s ban have been spearheaded by Christian churches who take seriously the commandment to love thy neighbor.

Um…yeah, @Hypocrisy_Central, we actually do offer to take them in. And when, for whatever reason, we can’t (not usually due to a lack of offering, or not enough space, but because the helping programs tend to cover accomodations for positive community support) then we help support during the resettlement process.

I want to. I’ve been in such a state of flux I’ve barely had shelter for myself. Of course that’s an exaggeration that doesn’t compare to the refugee situation.

The stupidity of this question angers me. It is the height of illogic.

Favoring the harboring of refugees does not obligate me to open my own home. It simply means that I desire my society to spend its resources to make a place available to refugees. Since I pay taxes, this means I wish that my contribution to the state’s coffers would be used to allow housing and other necessities to be made available to refugees.

To say that I must open my personal space is stupid in the extreme. I mean “stupid” to be read in the most derisive way you can muster.

@Hypocrisy_Central This question is asinine.

I saw a video the other day when a guy went undercover and asked this very question of protestors protesting the ban. The excuses reasons they gave are pretty lame too.

I have a spare bedroom here which is a bit small but I would have no problem sharing it with a refugee. I think it would be good for both of us. This isn’t really an option for me however as all the refugees that flew in to my home city were provided with accommodation by the city council.

Groups of us get together and do sponsor/care for refugee families.

Up here we’ve now run up against the annual limit of the number of families/individuals the government will allow us to sponsor. We have sponsorship groups prepared – with housing/jobs/support – waiting for the next group to be allowed in. We are petitioning for an increase in the community sponsor limit.

@Hypocrisy_Central So those who don’t want to give a refuge to those who need it so desperately are questioning the compassion of those who do?

Does it count if I support using the taxes I pay to pay for the refugee programs? That is my way of “taking one in”.

@Hawaii_Jake To say that I must open my personal space is stupid in the extreme. I mean “stupid” to be read in the most derisive way you can muster.
To say one has to cram a child into a space they might not have to respect that child’s right to live is even stupider; even beyond ludicrous. But that is the mentality of those who try to justify their crime against unborn humans…..go figure.

@flutherother So those who don’t want to give a refuge to those who need it so desperately are questioning the compassion of those who do?
Sure, they have compassion, that is why they are protesting, it is that some have faulty reasoning seeped in hypocrisy.

“So why aren’t those opposing immigration personally building a wall at the Southern border. Hypocrites!”

That’s how stupid this question is.

@Hypocrisy_Central Well if I was a Syrian refugee I would be quite happy to move in with someone in the west even if they were hypocrites with faulty reasoning.

@Call Me Jay Well done!!!!

And now H_C is using false equivalencies, yet another illogical argument. He’s really not capable of logical thought.

I’m out.

Seriously, there are more unselfish people here in the US than selfish ones. Maybe your question is why don’t those who approve of refugees and immigrants coming here spend directly their money on supporting them and not use goverment funding.

Germany has welcomed tons of refugees compared to the miniscule number the US is welcoming in. Only means one thing. Germany is more cool than the US with regards to this humanitarian issue.

@Call_Me_Jay That’s how stupid this question is.
Still doesn’t absolve those who justify killing a human in the womb because those champion them do not care to take on in at birth….but believe you are right all day long…even Adolf Eichmann got pats on the back by some people.

@Hawaii_Jake I’m out.
Out of fuel, out of bullets, spiraling down to the march having been flamed by an F-16 Tomcat; if I could not bring anything more than a bi-plane to a dogfight, I would high tail it away too. ~~

@mazingerz88 Germany has welcomed tons of refugees compared to the miniscule number the US is welcoming in.
Uncle Sam only does things when it can make him look good or there is a tactical advantage by doing it. Lady Liberty has been bitch slopped long ago.

So every progressive action ultimately comes down to abortion? Talk about faulty logic.

Seems that way @LostInParadise and the only reason his hero sir Trump jumped on the anti-abortion train was to get the right wing religious vote other than could care less about it.

On an individual basis, that’s not always an option. I myself have a small place, and very little spare money to help someone out. Does that mean I should not champion the refugee cause?

I can’t recall anyone here making a case that pro life people are insincere. And I certainly don’t believe that failure to adopt demonstrates insincerity. I realize that you’re on a mission, and every question boils down to the issue of abortion, but this premise is the lamest route to the topic you have yet devised. You gotta face it HC. Your crowd loses the debate. There is as yet just no route to childbirth barring the participation of the mother. The question boils down to whether or not your bunch is justified in forcing that participation, and the answer is and must remain NO. Neither you nor the state should be allowed to compel a woman to bear a child.

@LostInParadise So every progressive action ultimately comes down to abortion? Talk about faulty logic.
So every selfish liberal action did not stem from abortion? Talk of faulty logic. If it always comes back to that, chickens always come home to roost, if the selfish action was not hatched, it would be nothing to speak of.

@SQUEEKY2 Seems that way @LostInParadise and the only reason his hero sir Trump jumped on the anti-abortion train was to get the right wing religious vote other than could care less about it.
I have no earthly hero, if he doesn’t care about the sanctity of life but does actions to help it, without a better choice reason says go with that than get the same without any sanctity of life. As it was said on another thread, some Syrian refugee would not care where they were housed, who pays for it, or if they did it only to aggrandize themselves, they are escaping a situation they are living in that is most dire.

@stanleybmanly I realize that you’re on a mission, and every question boils down to the issue of abortion, …]
Not all of my many questions are about abortion and the hypocrisy around it thereof, some are fluffy silly questions that almost make me vomit, but if you can’t raise a standard sometimes you have to seek what is in the gutter. Other questions have been on other hypocrisies, because everyone loves their double standards and will defend them to the death, but just because you have supporters does not a righteous act make, Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann I am sure got pats on the back when they were among like minds.

Your crowd loses the debate.
What does that mean, your crowd lost the election? People are resisting as we speak to a fact that was legally manifested, and no deaths came of it, no life was ceased because Trump won. No one can deny a life is halted by an abortion, and to halt that life other than the health of the mother is what, predicated on being merciful, compassionate, magnanimous, or just plain selfish? I implore anyone to show how it is not selfish without being utterly ridiculous.

There is as yet just no route to childbirth barring the participation of the mother.
To ask what should be the obvious, why is that? Was it some law put on the books by people, the Illuminati, the Pope, why can’t the birth process exclude women? Oh , let me see…..to some it is an act or process of nature, it was intended to be that way, sorry if it is inconvenient, so is getting old but people deal with it.

The question boils down to whether or not your bunch is justified in forcing that participation, and the answer is and must remain NO.
The question is if it can ever be justified to kill an unborn human that the host played a part in generating can do so simply because it is inconvenient for them to finish what they started unilaterally, the answer to that must be never. Some thread back people said no one has the right to pull the plug on a sentient, sapient machine even if they built it, the irony, the human is the most remarkable sentient, and sapient being in the universe and just because it did not roil out of a factory or workroom with a fully loaded brain with a SSD hard drive it equals to lettuce you toss out when you can no longer make a sandwich with it. That doesn’t seem strange to you? –Why did I ask that, I know what answer I will get back—.

The question has merit in this forum as asked.

Unfortunately though, the thread always becomes circular, like a Trump question.

I assume at this point it will boil down to two things – 1. Pro choicers will state their case.
2. Insults will fly.

@Hypocrisy_Central . Sometimes I think you just like to throw shit in the fan and put up your umbrella.

Surely you must have predicted that most jellies would answer that they would take in refugees. And surely you knew that the question would be a lightning rod.

So now LAPD is about to Rodney King you again…

I guess I’ll film it again…

I wish you put this energy into writing Trump. Because he isn’t going to make abortions illegal. He’s probably responsible for more abortions than all of Fluther combined…

So every selfish liberal action did not stem from abortion? Talk of faulty logic. If it always comes back to that, chickens always come home to roost, if the selfish action was not hatched, it would be nothing to speak of.

Let me put this as diplomatically as possible. When you change the original question about refugees to an unrelated, yes unrelated, argument about abortion, you have effectively conceded the argument. This discussion is finished. Your gave an invalid argument against those who support providing sanctuary for refugees.

@MrGrimm888 Surely you must have predicted that most jellies would answer that they would take in refugees. And surely you knew that the question would be a lightning rod.
First, if I KNOW how some will act or respond here because that IS the fruit they ripened on their tree for years, until that fruit shows, if I say that is the fruit you will see, I am “holier than thou”, or being condescending. If I give people the benefit of doubt and enough rope to hang themselves with it then I say “look at that fruit”, I should have known better. The only way to win is to be one of the diseased fruit, then I would never know the difference.

Second, this place should be more than a pseudo shrink or couples counselor. I know some might not want to stimulate their mind to think beyond ”Does she, why don’t he” questions, but if we are as grown as we say we are, we should want question content that is above the equivalence of Saturday morning cartoons.

I wish you put this energy into writing Trump.
According to some, he is just a figurehead, a token; he doesn’t truly run the nation. Besides that, God King Xerxes is not POTUS, so what can be gained in bellyaching when the time to pull together and see what we can fix is at hand. If the fence is down, fighting over design or what material to repair it with doesn’t keep the horses in the pasture, if you want to keep the horses in the pasture, you repair the damn fence not sit on the lumber and sulk because you can’t get your way.

@LostInParadise When you change the original question about refugees to an unrelated, yes unrelated, argument about abortion, you have effectively conceded the argument.
The only reference I made to pro-life was how pro-choice people try to justify their actions by actions pro-life people seemed not to take or desire to, and expansion of that subject always comes by other people injecting it into the narrative.

Your gave an invalid argument against those who support providing sanctuary for refugees.
I would not have been the first, and if so, I learned it from those pro-choisers who framed a dubious argument to support a selfish act because of the acts of pro-lifers; but so long as people pat you on the back you can believe you are right. <tick tick>

@Hypocrisy_Central . I didn’t mean to infer that controversial subject matter shouldn’t be discussed here. I just meant that the way you phrased this question, to me, made it a predictable attack from all sides…

@MrGrimm888 I just meant that the way you phrased this question, to me, made it a predictable attack from all sides…
The question was based on some gonzo logic some people have about things, it goes beyond this. For instance some people believe if you are annoyed at chopping down healthy disease free trees to plant some sapling that will take 20 years to be usable you should be annoyed not to drive a vehicle given how the planet is compromised to get the fuel for it. Some might be that down for the trees and ecology, I am more pragmatic about it.

^I don’t think it’s as crazy as others here do. It’s like when I asked why people who are against abortions, are usually against government aid…

You are asking for people to honestly look at their beliefs. But,as I said, I felt this question was worded in a way as to draw fire…

Once the thread becomes everyone ganging up on you, it becomes of less interest to me.
It loses context,and evolves into an eventual stack of “response moderated.”

@MrGrimm888 But,as I said, I felt this question was worded in a way as to draw fire…
I can ask the blandest question about a bowl of beans and it will offend someone. There was a question weeks ago about if people in the US was becoming stupider, I truly had to ponder that. It certainly looks as if some are losing their objective thinking (if Fluther serves as a microcosm or the US), some people seem to have a hard time separating the environment of the question from the person asking it.