http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/top/a-small-slovakian-town-held-a-vote-on-accepting-refugees-97-percent-said-no/2015/09/28/1d29b1c0-6168-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html
Just read this story from the Washington Post on how a small Slovakian town voted not to take in refugees.
It frustrates me to see folks being turned away. These people are streaming out of their home country in search of a safe place to live.
I get really frustrated when I read about 'Arab' countries not taking in refugees. To be clear, Lebanon, an Arab country, I believe has taken in a million refugees from Syria and Iraq. I know Jordan, another Arab country, has also taken in huge numbers. There are NGO organizations working hard to assist with providing refugee families from both Iraq and Syria with homes, food and education. For example:
http://frrme.org This is the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East. I've had the distinct honor and pleasure of meeting Canon Andrew White. There are MANY people doing MANY good things to help with the refugees streaming out of Syria and Iraq. But it's not enough.
So back to the question of Arab countries taking in or not taking in refugees. Well.....very opinionated stuff coming.....
What many people may not realize is that a number of Gulf Arab countries provide A LOT of money/benefits to their citizens to keep folks happy and to keep things running smoothly within those countries, in my opinion. Giving this same level of money/benefits to refugees is likely not economically feasable. There is actually high unemployment among young Arab men in a large number of Gulf countries. Check this article out: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/15/youth-unemployment-in-rich-middle-east-a-liability-wef.html
Refugees need to be in places that can actually handle the influx of new people into their populations. If a large number of refugees move into an area with already high unemployment, what do you think is likely to happen to that country's government? It might not survive the influx.
Economic powerhouses like the United States and Germany can handle more refugees than other countries because we have highly functioning big money economies. With hard work on the part of the refugees, they will be able to find work and a safe place to live.
Am I saying that the United States should take in a million refugees? No, I'm not. But, I do believe that we can do much better. Fear of outsiders, fear of those who are different from us, marginalization of our fellow humans - these are the things that contribute to the rise of extremists.
I found a number online that there are 320,000 churches in the United States. http://churchrelevance.com/qa-how-many-us-churches-exist/ If even 100,000 of those churches sponsored one refugee family from somewhere, wow....what a difference that would make.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-calls-on-every-european-parish-to-take-in-one-migrant-family_55ec205ee4b03784e276184e
Wake up folks....and smell the coffee....we should be better than this if we're going to call ourselves Christians.
Peace.
Just read this story from the Washington Post on how a small Slovakian town voted not to take in refugees.
It frustrates me to see folks being turned away. These people are streaming out of their home country in search of a safe place to live.
I get really frustrated when I read about 'Arab' countries not taking in refugees. To be clear, Lebanon, an Arab country, I believe has taken in a million refugees from Syria and Iraq. I know Jordan, another Arab country, has also taken in huge numbers. There are NGO organizations working hard to assist with providing refugee families from both Iraq and Syria with homes, food and education. For example:
http://frrme.org This is the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East. I've had the distinct honor and pleasure of meeting Canon Andrew White. There are MANY people doing MANY good things to help with the refugees streaming out of Syria and Iraq. But it's not enough.
So back to the question of Arab countries taking in or not taking in refugees. Well.....very opinionated stuff coming.....
What many people may not realize is that a number of Gulf Arab countries provide A LOT of money/benefits to their citizens to keep folks happy and to keep things running smoothly within those countries, in my opinion. Giving this same level of money/benefits to refugees is likely not economically feasable. There is actually high unemployment among young Arab men in a large number of Gulf countries. Check this article out: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/15/youth-unemployment-in-rich-middle-east-a-liability-wef.html
Refugees need to be in places that can actually handle the influx of new people into their populations. If a large number of refugees move into an area with already high unemployment, what do you think is likely to happen to that country's government? It might not survive the influx.
Economic powerhouses like the United States and Germany can handle more refugees than other countries because we have highly functioning big money economies. With hard work on the part of the refugees, they will be able to find work and a safe place to live.
Am I saying that the United States should take in a million refugees? No, I'm not. But, I do believe that we can do much better. Fear of outsiders, fear of those who are different from us, marginalization of our fellow humans - these are the things that contribute to the rise of extremists.
I found a number online that there are 320,000 churches in the United States. http://churchrelevance.com/qa-how-many-us-churches-exist/ If even 100,000 of those churches sponsored one refugee family from somewhere, wow....what a difference that would make.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-calls-on-every-european-parish-to-take-in-one-migrant-family_55ec205ee4b03784e276184e
Wake up folks....and smell the coffee....we should be better than this if we're going to call ourselves Christians.
Peace.
