Did you read the article posted by George, Ricky? those people were fearful of Muslim refugees. There are probably economic concerns as well in Europe. The recent attack on recruiting centers by a Muslim probably did not help things. As a general rule I think it fair to say that human beings are not very good at assessing risks. The number of attacks by Muslims is small but clearly people are fearful about them. 9-11, suicide bombers, Major Hasan...these things cause disproportionate fear in people. Heck, that was their design...that's why it is called terrorism.

So it's not a matter of a lack of compassion it's a matter of fear. The fact that we have little ability to trace the background of these refugees isn't helping matters. Are mainstream Muslims going to do something about Islamic radicals or are they going to let them define their religion? In any case, as small as the risk may, a lot of people in Europe and the US don't want to deal with it.

bbauska

Are you honestly saying that a government should practice the teachings of the religion that a majority of it's citizens?

I said that if a vast majority of a nations citizens feel that their nation should behave generously to the poor and the afflicted, the nation should reflect that in its policies
If the people get that attitude from their religious belief, great.
And, if they are faithful to their religious creed, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu Bhuddist or Humanist ... they should be generous. Because that's what their religions teach them. No?

The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish other people to treat us.
Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. It is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers

.
The Law of One: "We are all one. When one is harmed, all are harmed. When one is helped, all are healed"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

freeman3

So it's not a matter of a lack of compassion it's a matter of fear. The fact that we have little ability to trace the background of these refugees isn't helping matters. Are mainstream Muslims going to do something about Islamic radicals or are they going to let them define their religion? In any case, as small as the risk may, a lot of people in Europe and the US don't want to deal with it.

Fear and ignorance often trumps compassion.
Fear and ignorance often trumps reason.
Its a call to action by moral leaders like Pope Francis that may help overcome this...
Its actual action by leaders like Angela Merkel that demonstrates the courage necessary.

Its the use of that fear by demagogues, the magnification of the danger, and the dehumanizing slurs that should repel us all.

In my country the government has seldom lead the way. When the Vietnamese boat refugees left South VietNam it was private citizens and church groups that stepped forward and sponsored refugees. At least the government didn't stand in the way of that effort.
Similarly today, the US and Canadian governments have had a shamefully weak response to the need to assist these people. In Canada I know its been private groups again leading, but this time the government is an impediment, for reasons of security. And we aren't in any way threatened with the upheaval that Europe is encountering.
We all could and should do more.
The possibility that hidden in these refugees are potential terrorists is there. But there are already potential terrorists in every nation. A lot, probably most, of these aren't Muslims. Their just crazy people looking to shoot up a school or a church or an island of campers and justify it with some political agenda. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be legitimate screening of the refugees and that we shouldn't be vigilante . But if we refuse to assume any risk at all in offering help ... we won't get around to helping anyone. And that will breed more resentment and more potential terrorists than anything. The history of the Palestinian terror groups should provide evidence of that ...

But you are saying two different things. The government should represent the people's views on charity, but the government should not represent the people's views on such things as abortion and marriage.

How do you reconcile the difference of your opinion? Should it only represent the people's views on that which you support?

Please note that I did say that the government should be giving assistance (albeit not as much as you would think) to it's citizens and legal immigrants.

I said that if a vast majority of a nations citizens feel that their nation should behave generously to the poor and the afflicted, the nation should reflect that in its policies
If the people get that attitude from their religious belief, great.
And, if they are faithful to their religious creed, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu Bhuddist or Humanist ... they should be generous. Because that's what their religions teach them. No?

You're going to rapidly find that this point leads you into a dead end where either you need to defend policies that you fundamentally disagree with or you have to become a hypocrite. The vast majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are rampantly homophobic and believe that women should be subservient to men. Is it right therefore that their governments reflect these attitudes in their policies ?

Sassenach wrote:I think it's self evident that you can control who can come to live in your country if you've a mind to do it. It's difficult of course, especially so for liberal democracies who have scruples about human rights, but the idea that there's nothing you can do you may as well just accept everybody is nonsense. Australia manages pretty well. Granted, they have the sea as a natural frontier, but so does Italy and the Italian immigration system is in a state of complete collapse. The Aussies actively intervened to turn back the people-smuggling boats and reached agreements with nations outside of their territory to house asylum seekers in camps offshore where their claims can be processed before they're allowed to come in. This has led to a sharp dropoff in numbers of economic migrants into Australia. Italy could do something similar if it had a mind to. I'm sure a deal could be struck with Tunisia to house migrants intercepted at sea (we'd have to pay them a lot of money, but with the state of the Tunisian economy right now I reckon they'd go for it). That way, instead of operating a ferry service for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, encouraging many more to take a chance on the same risky journey, we'd still be rescuing people but that rescue would not result in instant access to Europe. We could be doing these things, but we're not.

Australia has somewhat of a geographic advantage. It is a long sea journey to get there, and across not a very busy set of sealanes, so can be monitored. And there are few places to land that are hospitable on the north side of the country. So it is a lot easier to patrol.

Also their camps in places like Nauru are pretty shoddy in many ways. Did you know that guards sexually abusing the inmates were given a legal pass recently? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/australia-migr ... ee-1517881

Italy is across the sea from Tunisia, but not far, and the Med is busier. I agree that that it could be possible to ship people back to Tunisia (maybe not Libya). But I expect many are not Tunisian, and the question would then be by what rights and laws does Tunisia hold them? And for how long before they can be released - or do you try and send them elsewhere?

sass

You're going to rapidly find that this point leads you into a dead end where either you need to defend policies that you fundamentally disagree with or you have to become a hypocrite. The vast majority of citizens in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are rampantly homophobic and believe that women should be subservient to men. Is it right therefore that their governments reflect these attitudes in their policies.

Yes. this is true. However I also think that the leaders of governments have a duty to lead.
To shape opinion.
To change their societies positively through word and dead.
I think that's what Angel Merkel has managed to do. I don't know if you've seen the scenes of refugees detraining in Germany and actually being welcomed with applause by german citizens. I think Angela's leadership has helped shape this positive response....
Its a difficult balance for liberal opinion leaders of very conservative societies like Afghanistan. They both need to lead in the direction of increasing liberties, but at the same time not move beyond what can be comfortably accommodated by society. Usually the opposition to change in conservative nations is because the leaders are of an elite group who control society and who benefit from the conservative nature of society. Democracy shares power with the full spectrum of society and opens up society to differing views.

bbauska

But you are saying two different things. The government should represent the people's views on charity, but the government should not represent the people's views on such things as abortion and marriage

No I'm not.
As usual you are narrowly focussing on the US. But lets.
The people of the US have determined that they will support their Constitution and its protections for individual liberties above all. True? You also want the government to represent this desire for protection of Constitutional law, no?
Included in this is the protection of the right to privacy and the right to equal protections and access under the law. The first has been interpreted to protect a woman's right to choose and have access to abortion. The second has been interpreted to mean that same sex couples should have access to legal marriage anywhere in the nation, not just some states.
People who want to ignore the Constitution and change laws despite the SCOTUS rulings, are very much in the minority or horribly ignorant of the Constitution and the rulings. People who believe in the constitution and its individual liberties at least respect the laws, if they don't support them.
By the way, the majority of Americans also support a woman's right to choose and gay marriage... So your point is moot anyway.

Bbauska

Please note that I did say that the government should be giving assistance (albeit not as much as you would think) to it's citizens and legal immigrants

That's big of you. where do you go for direction on where to draw the line?

Proverbs 14:31

31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Matthew 25:35-40

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ...

Yes. this is true. However I also think that the leaders of governments have a duty to lead.

Your point previously was that leaders have a duty to follow... Make your mind up.

I think that's what Angel Merkel has managed to do. I don't know if you've seen the scenes of refugees detraining in Germany and actually being welcomed with applause by german citizens. I think Angela's leadership has helped shape this positive response....

Yes, I've seen it. I've also seen Merkel's polling numbers start to plummet in the following weeks and seen Germany forced to reinstate border controls with Austria. Let's wait and see where her 'leadership' has really taken Germany (and the rest of Europe) shall we ? I suspect your sunny optimism will prove to be very wide of the mark.

Australia has somewhat of a geographic advantage. It is a long sea journey to get there, and across not a very busy set of sealanes, so can be monitored. And there are few places to land that are hospitable on the north side of the country. So it is a lot easier to patrol.

The Torres Strait is only 150 miles wide. Yes, they have to get there first, but most of the boat people looking to get into Australia moved down through Indonesia first. I wouldn't say that's any more difficult a trip than crossing the Sahara to Libya. Besides, monitoring for the boats is easy in either case, as we're proving now in the Med by intercepting so many of them and ferrying the passengers to Italy.

Also their camps in places like Nauru are pretty shoddy in many ways. Did you know that guards sexually abusing the inmates were given a legal pass recently?

I don't have enough knowledge of the conditions there to comment, but it's not entirely relevant anyway. I didn't say that we should house them in squalid camps and then turn a blind eye to sexual abuse. It's a different issue.

Italy is across the sea from Tunisia, but not far, and the Med is busier. I agree that that it could be possible to ship people back to Tunisia (maybe not Libya). But I expect many are not Tunisian, and the question would then be by what rights and laws does Tunisia hold them? And for how long before they can be released - or do you try and send them elsewhere?

That would have to be worked out as part of the agreement between Tunisia and the EU. They wouldn't necessarily have to be imprisoned though, rather we just make clear that if they want to make an asylum claim it must be made from within the camps. If they want to leave the camps and take their chances on another illegal voyage then they'd have to know that they'll be returned to the camps if they're picked up later. The problem will solve itself in short order because once it becomes known that this is the policy people will stop making the trip north.

sass

Your point previously was that leaders have a duty to follow... Make your mind up

Its not one or the other.
Leadership is a complex matter.
Governments should reflect the wishes of the nation ..... but you know full well that what a people want is shaped and moulded by opinion leaders. And especially in this group the government leadership.
At its base though, most people in Western nations have been taught a moral code from their families, religious affiliations, cultural affiliations, literature and media.
Giving full voice to that moral code and applying it to circumstance like the refugee crisis is the mark of leadership. Maybe its giving people what they want, even before they know they want it...


Sass

Yes, I've seen it. I've also seen Merkel's polling numbers start to plummet in the following weeks and seen Germany forced to reinstate border controls with Austria. Let's wait and see where her 'leadership' has really taken Germany (and the rest of Europe) shall we ? I suspect your sunny optimism will prove to be very wide of the mark

Well, I don't know if I'm sunnily optimistic. But I'd like to think human beings are evolving to be better kinder more social animals than warring tribes that used to scuttle about the face of the Earth.

"'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Leviticus 19:15

10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Do you really want to get into a Biblical discussion with me? I am honored. Much more I would love to have you show me where Jesus states that it is the government's responsibility to give charity. I contend it is a personal decision. One that I gladly give to our church for and personally help those less fortunate, and would hope that you would also.

Jesus wants to have a heart change in people. The change of heart does not come from a government taking money to provide for others. It comes from personal interaction with the needy. The government in impersonal and cold. It cannot change the hearts of those who give or are given to.

Show me where the Bible shows that a government is to give charity. Also look up the following, while you are at it:

Romans 3:10
Romans 3:23
Romans 5:12
Romans 6:23a
Romans 6:23b
Romans 5:8
Romans 10:13
Romans 10:9-10

Enjoy!

Ricky, leadership is also about making hard decisions in the national interest in the face of emotional pressure. Merkel has form for caving in to short term emotional spasms in the electorate. Her spontaneous decision to scrap the entire German nuclear power sector in the wake of Fukushima was a classic example of this, It's had disastrous effects both for the cost of energy for German consumers, increasing dependence on Russia and increased carbon emissions forced by a reversion to coal-fired power stations. It made everybody feel good for a couple of weeks though...

In this case she's made an emotional reaction to a photograph which was briefly popular but which will have terrible consequences in the long term. Make no mistake, this is not what the majority of Germans wants, and we'll see that in coming months. It certainly isn't what the likes of Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia etc want either, but that didn't stop Merkel forcing through mandatory relocation in the face of their objections (a very rare example of QMV being used to override national objections on a fundamental matter of national sovereignty).

Sassenach wrote:In this case she's made an emotional reaction to a photograph which was briefly popular but which will have terrible consequences in the long term.

Was it that?

She was making announcements on 31 August. The picture of the dead boy emerged following his death on 2 September.

Make no mistake, this is not what the majority of Germans wants, and we'll see that in coming months. It certainly isn't what the likes of Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia etc want either, but that didn't stop Merkel forcing through mandatory relocation in the face of their objections (a very rare example of QMV being used to override national objections on a fundamental matter of national sovereignty).

Merkel could not win a QMV vote without the support of quite a few others. And of course that is what these countries signed up for (and the UK opted out of).

Was it that?

Hmm, fair enough. Having looked again it does seem that her announcement came a few days before Aylan Kurdi. It doesn't really change the basic point though.

bbauska

Do you really want to get into a Biblical discussion with me?

If we do, lets limit it to direct quotations of Christ. (supposedly) How will you do then? I think almost everything he's quoted on is about generosity to the poor.

sass

It made everybody feel good for a couple of weeks though...

Or until the next nuclear meltdown occurs somewhere. At which point she'll be praised as prescient and wisely cautious. (Aside: I think the solution is to switch from using Uranium to Thorium, as a fuel. Not giving up on nuclear.)

I take your point about popularity based on individual actions can be fleeting dependent on the repercussions of the actions.
However, long term, the actions Merkel took should be good for the German economy. They need an influx of young people. Research has shown that waves of new immigration are almost always good for a nation's economy.
In the short term, the misery of the refugees will continue to dominate German media. As long as the majority of stories are about the ordinary people, and we don't see a lot about interdicted terrorists ....i think she's safe.
In a way, Germany has a familiarity with digesting a large populace of refugees. To a large extent, the reunification of Germany was about the accommodation of a large number of people who were deprived when compared with West Germans. (Angela was on of these Easterners). The cultural differences with the Middle Easterners will be difficult. But they won't be coming in with any notions of entitlement ... which some East Germans were accused of having shortly after reunification.

I take your point about popularity based on individual actions can be fleeting dependent on the repercussions of the actions.
However, long term, the actions Merkel took should be good for the German economy. They need an influx of young people. Research has shown that waves of new immigration are almost always good for a nation's economy.

This is nonsense I'm afraid. It always increases GDP of course, but that's inevitable when you have more people. That's not the same thing as saying that it always benefits the economy. What this will do is suppress wages and inflate the cost of housing for ordinary Germans at the bottom end. It'll add to the benefits bill substantially too. Continental Europe has a woeful record of social mobility for Islamic migrants. Unemployment rates are far above the norm, and there's no reason to suppose that this current mass wave of migrants will be any different. None of them speak any German after all, so they're going to have a hard time finding anything but menial work. This is not the solution to Germany's ageing population, which is itself not necessarily a long term problem anyway.

In a way, Germany has a familiarity with digesting a large populace of refugees. To a large extent, the reunification of Germany was about the accommodation of a large number of people who were deprived when compared with West Germans. (Angela was on of these Easterners). The cultural differences with the Middle Easterners will be difficult. But they won't be coming in with any notions of entitlement ... which some East Germans were accused of having shortly after reunification.

The Ossies were Germans, and even then the problems of reunification were immense (they're still paying for it today). A more relevant example would be the difficulties that Germany has faced trying to integrate the Turkish immigrants