Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the difference between the Christians fleeing ISIS in Iraq, and the young people fleeing violence in Central America? The Christian organizations and individuals are all over this one, saying we should help them, children are being murdered. The situations are very similar with the exception of geography. And are children not being murdered in Central America? Where were the Christian organizations a few weeks ago when everyone was clamoring to shove the Central Americans out and lock the door? Our attitudes have really taken a turn.
What really struck me in the last few days as I read some of the comments on the various news sites was this: the majority of the comments on the Iraqi situation were like "God Bless them" and "How can I help them" and "I'm praying for them", "these are real refugees", etc. Vastly different from the hate-filled comments full of stereotypes, misinformation, and blatant racism on the stories about the Central American refugees. And yet the situations are almost identical. And I'm not saying we shouldn't help the Iraqi Christians.
Why is there such a big difference in the attitudes of people and in the media reporting of situations (the media seems to be much more sympathetic to the Iraqi situation)?
You're not going to get any replies from the fanatics. Not happening. No way, no how.
To address this issue would be to address the hypocrisy of the hypoChristians (The "Turn the other cheek, unless it affects my property tax 'Christians'"). They aren't going to try to explain how kids fleeing Iraq are somehow better than kids fleeing Guatemala.
If any of them wanted to offer up a weak justification, it would be along the lines of, "Those Iraqi CHRISTIANS are being persecuted by evil, terrorist, jihadist, Taliban, turban-wearing evildoers. Those Guatemalan kids are just trying to escape murder and poverty." Nobody is trampling on their religious beliefs. So that kind of killing is acceptable. Christian on Christian murder is OK. Christians being murdered by other faiths is not.
I think it comes down to what happens to affect your own neighborhood.
A lot of folks living close to the border have seen fairly dramatic shifts in crime and local "flavor" over the past couple of decades. How objective their powers of observation may be is another discussion, but they may know a young girl who was raped by an immigrant, or suddenly have to listen to loud Latin rap on the street that never existed in their area before. This is the experience of some of my Texas relatives.
The Iraqi Christian kids aren't showing up in the parking lot of their local grocery store. Their lives aren't directly affected - plus, it is almost martyrdom! Surely you know that being killed "for Jesus" is much more of a tearjerker than being killed by a cartel.
Then there is the question of motivation - the Iraqis aren't fleeing into a much wealthier area that already has social welfare programs in place, ready for them.
Let's chuck the idea that the Central American bearded "kids" are refugees, because they're not. In addition, anyone claiming refugee status cannot pick and choose their countries--in other words, if they're true refugees (and they're not), they'd be claiming that status in Mexico, the country they're traveling through to get to the United States to rip off The Dumb Gringo.
I would say some possibilities is that I am not aware of any civil wars currently going on in Central America. Also, coming here by legal means, as opposed to illegally, plays a role. Although I would make it easier for Central Americans to come here legally.
It's a good point... a philosophical issue.. things that most people don't notice.
But as a way to explain this human behavior - As a rule, people are sympathetic to their own kind. Christians belong to their 'club" so to speak and care about those others who belong to the same club. Let's not blame Christians though. Every group is like this. It's just human behavior. If you feel close or kinship to something or someone, you will care about their fate. If not, then you don't. That's just the way it is.
Plus, some murders seem more outrageous than others in our human perception. If you can be murdered for just believing something it seems so bad. But if you're murdered in the course of human survival... well, that's something that's kind of normal for people. It's just life.
I'm consistent-the fact that the place you are from is a violent (or poor) craphole doesn't mean I have to open the door to my house to you. Our "refugee" policies are far, far, to generous in terms of accepting immigrants with zero skills needed in this country. Work to make your home a better place, not to turn my home into what you claim to want to leave.
What's the difference between the Christians fleeing ISIS in Iraq, and the young people fleeing violence in Central America? The Christian organizations and individuals are all over this one, saying we should help them, children are being murdered. The situations are very similar with the exception of geography. And are children not being murdered in Central America? Where were the Christian organizations a few weeks ago when everyone was clamoring to shove the Central Americans out and lock the door? Our attitudes have really taken a turn.
What really struck me in the last few days as I read some of the comments on the various news sites was this: the majority of the comments on the Iraqi situation were like "God Bless them" and "How can I help them" and "I'm praying for them", "these are real refugees", etc. Vastly different from the hate-filled comments full of stereotypes, misinformation, and blatant racism on the stories about the Central American refugees. And yet the situations are almost identical. And I'm not saying we shouldn't help the Iraqi Christians.
Why is there such a big difference in the attitudes of people and in the media reporting of situations (the media seems to be much more sympathetic to the Iraqi situation)?
The difference is that there is no proof that these Central Americans are in real danger in their personal lives for a refugee a status to apply to them. Unless they are involved with dealing in drugs why would they be in danger? From what I have read those questioned said they were coming here because of Obama's lax enforcement policies with promises of amnesty not that their lives were in danger. Most Latinos come here for economic opportunities. We have no refugee status for that nor should we.
Also the claim that they are all children is bogus. Men's sized underwear were ordered for them and from pictures I have seen some have mustaches and tattoos. Those aren't children. Many looked like gang bangers. I would say that the majority of them aren't truly refugees. We do know however know that Christians are being persecuted by the ISIS in Iraq along with their evil politics. Not so in Central America.
The difference is that there is no proof that these Central Americans are in real danger in their personal lives for a refugee a status to apply to them. Unless they are involved with dealing in drugs why would they be in danger? From what I have read those questioned said they were coming here because of Obama's lax enforcement policies with promises of amnesty not that their lives were in danger. Most Latinos come here for economic opportunities. We have no refugee status for that nor should we.
Also the claim that they are all children is bogus. Men's sized underwear were ordered for them and from pictures I have seen some have mustaches and tattoos. Those aren't children. Many looked like gang bangers. I would say that the majority of them aren't truly refugees. We do know however know that Christians are being persecuted by the ISIS in Iraq along with their evil politics. Not so in Central America.
The "gang-banger" argument doesn't make sense. Why would they be making a 1000 mile journey when their gangs are in control of three countries? They don't operate like that. The gangs are here (they formed here) and they have other ways of getting here.
The "gang-banger" argument doesn't make sense. Why would they be making a 1000 mile journey when their gangs are in control of three countries? They don't operate like that. The gangs are here (they formed here) and they have other ways of getting here.
All I can tell you is that many of these so-called kids had gang type tattoos. What does that tell you about their mentality?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
