Even a Lutheran refugee organization has opposed his barring of refugees…this is a problem many western countries are facing…the only way it seems to stop this is regime change in those countries that are causing misery to their people…how to do that is the big question
Except the Catholics following the ecumenical lead of Protestant evangelicals
The bishops call Abbott’s decision “misguided” and say it “denies people who are fleeing persecution, including religious persecution, from being able to bring their gifts and talents to our state and contribute to the general common good of all Texans.”
More people are saying that these talented and gifted people need to serve in the countries they flee from.
Just asking a question: If Texas has 6.4% of the US population, but took in 10% of the refugees, then why can’t Abbott say Texas has taken more than its fair share? (in addition to deal with more undocumented immigrants than most other states)
It is not surprising to me that Lutheran agencies are protesting, as some of their agencies are big in the “business” of refugee settlement. Not-for-profit organizations can contract with the government to resettle refugees, providing them with housing, sustenance, education, English language lessons, job training and placement. For this, their agencies receive government funds. Those agreements last for a period of time, then terminate. Lutheran organizations are not the only church-related “bureaucracies” who do this. Catholic and Baptist ones do too.
They don’t necessarily turn out well. I am aware of one in Missouri sponsored by some Baptist organization for Ukrainians and Russians. Both acclimated extraordinarily well, and quickly, and the program seems to have been a success.
On the other hand, one diocese of which i am aware nearly exhausted the government funding on a Somali group without achieving much of anything, then tried to dump them on Catholic Charities in another diocese. Catholic Charities estimated that it would take at least another five years of intensive work to acclimate them if it could be done at all. The funding ran out, and now the refugees are dependent on local charity of one kind or another.
Refugees for those programs are selected by the UN, not by the U.S. In the case of the Russian and Ukrainian Baptists, they were somewhat qualified for refugee status, one could argue, since Baptists were once persecuted in the Soviet Union. But one would doubt it. One could argue that the whole of the population of Somalia could qualify, since everyone there is at war with someone.
The big beneficiaries of these programs, though, are the companies that hire low-paying hand-intensive labor, since that’s where most refugees end up, displacing American workers and exhausting workers’ compensation funds as a consequence of machine-driven labor.
I miss George W Bush. He at least understood the role that migrants play to a vigorous economy. Odd that with Texas in an economic boon that Abbott doesn’t understand, or kowtows to the party line.
I don’t see how migrants who depress wages because they have no skills, including language skills, are of a benefit to anyone other than the users of repetitive, forceful upper extremity labor. There are enough of those kinds of employment in Texas that Abbott surely does understand that.
And it’s not “stoop labor” that “Americans won’t do”. It’s mainly factory labor that Americans once did before being replaced by sponsored UN-selected refugees who were willing to work for less.
And George W. Bush’s “Mexican preference” in immigration is not the same thing as we have right now.
Once again the bishops show us the way. Shame so many Catholics let their prejudices get in the way of loving the least among us.
It’s not a matter of “prejudices”. Evidently Abbott feels Texas taxpayers have done more than their share already in supporting refugees sent to the U.S. by the UN. Why do you think he’s wrong?
Do any of these Texas diocese make money from the government sponsorship programs? Some do for a certainty.
The Tex Attorney General said this. Hard to argue with him.
" I think the message is pretty simple from the governor,” Paxton told anchor Ainsley Earhardt on Tuesday. “Since 2010 … we’ve allowed more refugees into our state than any other state. All the time we’ve been believing that Congress would fix our immigration problem, secure the borders. They haven’t done that so we also have the border issue that we’ve been dealing with, with lots of immigrants coming in.”
It’s not a matter of prejudice. It’s a matter of fairness among the states. He’s talking about refugees IN ADDITION to those who come across the border illegally.
I didn’t get a response to my earlier question, but given your post, I’ll re-ask it of you…I’m curious about your perspective: If Texas has 6.4% of the US population but, per the article, already took in 10% of the refugees, why do you feel that when Abbott says Texas has already taken more than its fair share, that he is showing “prejudice” against immigrants, as opposed to have other, non-nefarious motives?
Inspiring, looks like the Catholics and Mormons are on the same page!
If everyone had done that throughout the years America would not be a country.
Make money??? You do know, I would assume, that the Catholic Church is a non-profit. They do no “make money” by using government funds and administering those funds to the purpose they were intended.
You meant the Mormons are on the same page as the Catholic Church. I would say there are a great many Catholics that are not on that same page, but are on the side of the goats, that is they do not welcome Jesus when he is a stranger. My bishop has been consistent in his defense of both the poor and the immigrant, so I do not know if the article is universal, but it sure seems like the Church is pretty much speaking with one voice, for those with ears to hear.
I do not doubt that the Texas bishops really do think they’re doing the right thing with this, but they do have a major conflict of interest, and it is a hard one to truly resolve. On the one hand, they can’t be unaware that the UN-selected refugees, about which they and the State of Texas actually know almost nothing, will compete with people already here with the result possibly of depriving many of a living wage. They have to know that, and they have to know it’s “other peoples’ money” with which they’re being generous.
On the other hand, they have a very serious financial interest in refugee programs. I’m not saying these bishops are being venal, but they would have significant numbers of people in the “Church bureaucracies” that administer these programs who advise and push them to support the programs that the bureaucrats live on, sometimes quite handsomely.
The following information is dated, but it you look at it, you’ll see that the Texas diocesan associations receive enormous sums from the government to run these refugee programs.
I’m sure it’s more likely that the bishops are in it for that sweet refugee cash instead of just trying to emphasize and follow Christ’s teachings.
“Not for profit” only means there are no shareholders who get dividends. Lots of “not for profits” make huge profits, including medical complexes, universities and even some insurance companies.
I do not know what kinds of money that directors of the TExas organizations make, but they’re usually six figures.
But I never said diocese “making money” is the point, though they certainly can. Bishops can create charitable organizations hiring lots of people and helping lots of people, and all on government money. They, and their six-figure directors undoubtedly feel they’re doing their Christian duty, but are they really? Importing people about whom they know nothing and setting them up in competition for jobs with people already here is not unquestionably a charitable endeavor.
“non-profit” is a tax status with the IRS, not a business model.
where do the Church’s teachings regarding “the common good” come into play in your mind? Is it the common good to unfairly put the burden of supporting these refugees on one state, and not others who currently have a lighter burden. What is wrong with spreading the cost out over many states more equitably?