The Briefing Room
General Category => Immigration/Border => Topic started by: rangerrebew on April 27, 2018, 09:42:59 pm
-
Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?
Posted by Ann Corcoran on April 27, 2018
That is the question a young opinion writer asks and answers (in the affirmative of course!) in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on the President’s travel ban.
The long opinion piece in Deseret News by writer Gillian Friedman evoked a largely negative response by readers. I especially got a chuckle out of this comment:
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/does-america-have-a-moral-obligation-to-resettle-refugees/
-
No.
-
Rochester No
-
A B.A. in Race and Ethnic Studies.
-
'Moral obligations' are for theocracies, which we are not.
-
'Moral obligations' are for theocracies, which we are not.
Ahh, so then this was never supposed to be a Christian nation.
-
Ahh, so then this was never supposed to be a Christian nation.
Merely holding the leftists to their own standard.
-
Merely holding the leftists to their own standard.
No, actually, you’re not.
-
Ahh, so then this was never supposed to be a Christian nation.
That time has passed. September 11 2001 to be exact.
-
Ahh, so then this was never supposed to be a Christian nation.
@Oceander
I hope these "refugees" move right next to you. I hope the houses next to you are full of
unemployable male refugees. I hope your entire neighborhood goes full "refugees" with every loud
calls to prayer four times a day.
We are morally obligated to take care of our own first.
-
We have a lot of homeless, a lot of them can't be helped but I'm sure some can. Maybe we should consider taking care of our own first. I'm all for helping the truly persecuted.
-
We've got cities that are in pretty sad shape. We have a lot to take care of. Help those truly in need.
-
'Moral obligations' are for theocracies, which we are not.
So only religious people have morals?
-
'Moral obligations' are for theocracies, which we are not.
Wrong on both counts.
No, an obligation is required. If it is required, it is no longer charitable.
The obligation is to be charitable.
-
Wrong on both counts.
No, an obligation is required. If it is required, it is no longer charitable.
The obligation is to be charitable.
Charity starts at home. With our people.
-
Charity starts at home. With our people.
Sure.
-
We've got cities that are in pretty sad shape. We have a lot to take care of. Help those truly in need.
And let's have a foreign policy that helps improve living standards in those countries, so they won't be compelled to have to come here in the first place. Globalization results in productive people leaving for greener pastures leaving those left behind to whither on the vine, and that is simply not sustainable.
-
No, actually, you’re not.
No liberal will allow any mention of morality or moral obligation in any religious sense that disagrees with their own belief system. They will tell you that we are a secular society that it's a violation of separation of church and state to do so while talking about things like moral obligation out of the other side of their mouth..
-
And let's have a foreign policy that helps improve living standards in those countries, so they won't be compelled to have to come here in the first place. Globalization results in productive people leaving for greener pastures leaving those left behind to whither on the vine, and that is simply not sustainable.
I agree, in theory, but the refugees that are seeking new homes nowadays are the victims of displacement by war, war exacerbated by the rivalries of east and west. The question, it seems to me, isn't whether we have a moral obligation to resettle refugees, but whether we have a moral obligation to do our share. If the rest of world is pitching in to assist those displaced by war, are we morally able to refuse to help?