if their going to be this ungrateful maybe its time to send them right back home.
Immigration and multiculturalism news
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
if their going to be this ungrateful maybe its time to send them right back home.
A safe third country is much better.
Considering that this scheme is replicated in many countries now, wonder if it's a newly invented corruption scheme to benefit NGOs, politicians and hotel owners, with taxpayers footing the bill. Reading a bit deeper into it hotel owners get an unusually, especially for a government contract, swell deal for it - not only they get guaranteed "clients", the clients don't even get a choice if they don't like the quality, service or something. Friendship with free market ended, government contracting is my new friend.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
They also spend money on the 'migrants' and not the homeless. Which is incredibly telling.
But then again the Tyrant loves the Foreigner as the Foreigner is not the Tyrant's enemy.
But then again the Tyrant loves the Foreigner as the Foreigner is not the Tyrant's enemy.
As the article says, New York City alone is apparently housing over 26,000 migrants in over seventy hotels in that city alone.
Typhonis
Well-known member
26,000 x $500 a head. That is $1,300,000 in total. Why are they spending that much on them? Oh wait...money laundering scheme.
1. Migrants are generally not the nicest and best behaved to visit a hotel... Lots of stuff gets trashed.
2. Four star hotel in New York... what did you expect?
Now it's up to the taxpayers to decide if whoever thought it's an acceptable idea to rent four star hotels to house migrants at those prices is a good steward of public budget, or perhaps guilty of mismanagement, and complain loudly that when they go for a vacation in Mexico they don't get taxpayer funded four star hotel, they have to actually pay for it.
King Arts
Well-known member
Nope, I support taking care of the immigrant and refugee. It's good Christian charity. Taking care of the foreigner and guest has been praised since ancient times, fuck any selfishness.
I vehemently disagree. In ancient times it was a valid assumption that the travelers and guests must have serious enough business (rather than being random chancers traveling in hordes), traveling was actually dangerous (traveling legally in first world is safer than pretty much anywhere in pre-modern times), they brought usually hard to access information by word of mouth (if someone was from distant lands, it was almost guaranteed to be someone of upper class, a merchant, noble, diplomat, scholar or so), and last but not least, they were expected to leave, not have their "guesthood" be extended into indefinite settlement by welfare. Is such circumstances, it was quite reasonable to be nice to travelers.
We don't live in that world anymore. We live in the world of airlines, internet, phones, passports, airbnb and visa cards. The closer analogy to that is barbarian hordes settling on borderlands of Roman Empire without regard for local laws, customs, or ownership of the land they settle on.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
This is not charity, this is not hospitality, this is exploitation and false piety.
If it was charity, people would be paying with their own money.
If it was hospitality, people would be inviting guests into their own homes.
Instead, it is people using other people's money, and other people's structures, to pretend that they are virtuous.
King Arts
Well-known member
What you just said shows a complete lack of understanding of how the world has worked for thousands of years. First off since ancient times kings have taken taxes from their subjects and used those taxes for anything under the sun including gifts or alms or presents for the poor widow’s orphans the foreigner among you, etc. your the government spends other peoples money taxes are illegitimate tripe is a new fangled ideology invented by libertarians 70 years ago. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Lucky for you you live in a republic so you have some say who caesar is, but still you are not caesar if you disagree how the money is spent maybe too much for the army or it’s being corrupt you yourself can’t stop it just because you think it should be spent better. The most you are allowed to do is vote in someone else who you think will spend the money better. But any idiotic talk about taxes being other people’s money is not just false it’s unchristian especially when you are complaining about money being used to take care of the poor.
Cool story bro. But one does not vote for a Caesar. There is a fundamental difference in position between the subjects and the sovereign in a monarchy, and between citizens and the government in a modern democratic republic, which often has it stated in the constitution that the former constitute a collective sovereign.
Yes, a Caesar can institute a 99% tax and spend it all to build giant golden statues of himself. But there is no Caesar, and if there was one and did it, he would surely get assassinated, and rightfully so.
And here you give a good demonstration of your poor understanding of modern western governments.
No, they are not Caesars who are elected. They are limited governments. Just like constitutional monarchy, except even more limited and restricted.
*looks at the streets of LA, NY and Chicago*
Don't you people have your own poor to take care of?
Isn't Christian charity supposed to be personal and not to be bragged about, rather than forced by an absolute ruler?
King Arts
Well-known member
Caesar himself was a dictator who overthrew the Republic. But Jesus is not saying "Oh dictators can do whatever they want and Christians must obey them, but if a Republic does it Christians can be disobedient." No Jesus is using Caesar as an analogy for the government or state. Christians must be obedient to it. And more specifically they must pay taxes to it taxes are not theft.
The people in a Republic are not collectively Caesar either, in a pure democracy like Athens maybe, but no in a Republic the representatives decide how the state uses it's authority. They have limits but just because a citizen does not want to give money to Israel or Ukraine, or for a border fence, etc. They don't have the right to stop it they must follow the law the money will be spent on what Caesar(government) wills. Since they live in a Republic they are able to vote for someone else. But what the previous represenatives voted for was not illegetimate it can be stopped by future represenatives but it was not "Muh taxes are theft!"
Also while a leader who institutes a 99% tax rate might get assassinated for incompetence, that would still be a sin for a Christian to do and if he dies in the process of doing that, or before he can repent then he is surely hell bound.
Again refer above Caesar also had legal limits on his authority he was careful to avoid the title of king. Does not matter the internal logic of a state, God's law is clear Christians must obey the earthly ruler UNLESS they are enforcing anti Christian things.
Yes, there are poor people everywhere. Just because there are poor people somewhere else, is not an excuse to not help other poor people here. This is a bad faith argument.
Also a Christian can give personal charity yes. But an absolute ruler can also give charity and God will reward them for that.
Of course Jesus couldn't tell his followers what should they do when they are the government and what taxes are ok or not to establish and how is it ok to spend them, for they were not the government back then so it was kinda irrelevant, and many wars were had over this question.
The representatives are called that not for shits and giggles, but because they are representatives of the sovereign, they have a duty to fulfill the will of "the people" to the best of their knowledge and ability.
The difference is that citizens, unlike Caesar's subjects, have more or less ways to exchange or even punish the representatives for spending the money contrary to their will, up to, and including outright prosecution and sentencing for theft from public treasury.
As patriots, they also have a duty to resist rulers who are ruining their country. These are separate and not necessarily contradictory duties.
If you are a total internationalist globalist who will eagerly give his seal of approval for the "no borders, no nations, no deportations" slogan, sure.
If you aren't, there are priorities.
But as we have established, we have no absolute ruler.
So how much tax revenue does an absolute ruler need to send to the poor of distant lands for it to become a sin rather than virtue?
Because people are greedy.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Because they've slowly increased the amount they extort from us.
King Arts
Well-known member
You are putting words in Jesus's mouth he did not state, that's a sin. Jesus also said things in the old testament when the Jews had an actual state. Can you show where he put a "limit" on taxes? Jesus said through the apostles OBEY THE EARTHLY RULERS unless they order something contrary to God's law, the best argument for a rebellion against the ruler for tax reasons under a christian framework is that if the ruler takes that much it would lead to the people dying and them obeying that is suicide. But that would require some very high taxes in a non rich area.
Yes that is the job of the representative, hell the absolute monarch has a duty to take care of his people to the best of their knowledge and ability though he does not have to follow their will. But here is the things you are not getting first off the representative does not represent YOU specefically he represents ALL of his constituents you make up less than 1% of that. So the collective as a whole if they don't like it they can vote him out in the next election, but if he got elected once unless he hid many things what he is doing probably is not against the will of most of the people. Also even if most people disliked it in a Republic not everything is up for a vote, the unpopular actions of the leader are still legitimate, unless a recall election is possible and actually done. Until that happens a Christian MUST obey those rules.
Well theft from the public treasury was a thing Romans had, and it was probably punished more than we do. But beside the point, first off these actions don't fit stealing from the public treasury. Using funds for something you don't like does not meet the defintion. If isolationists get in power and they prosecute people who were giving things to Ukraine for example, that would not be stealing it's being done openly it's voting on the budget. Just because you don't like how every penny is spent does not give you the right to contest it.
Thats a very very very fine line. You can't just overthrow the ruler because he is mediocre and you have a better one lined up. Before you can even put into place your coup or treason the leader has to either be committing grave sins himself, making laws hostile to Christianity, or being actively malicious towards his own people and trying to get them to basically sin and suicide themselves. And before all that he should be warned that the effects he is doing are hurting his people and are a sin. And only if he persists THEN it is justifiable to rebel. Not many leaders in history and rebellions were this bad. The American Revolution for example did not reach this standard, the Revolutionary Army sinned and the Founding Fathers sinned greatly.
Ok this is just a shit argument. Show proof that he stole the bread from the mouths of American, that he kicked out Americans already staying there to make room for the immigrants. That's not what happened unless that money was already earmarked for poor Americans and it was taken away you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. No the money was from a general fund that would go towards anything, roads, the army, other government programs. You say oh that money could have been used to help Americans, yes it could have but would it have been? "Fiscal Conservatives" would have bitched and moaned about anything that helped poor Americans if we took money and used it to build houses for every homeless American they'd bitch and moan. But not for a giant military, not to give lots of cash to other nations.
I was responding to your think about Christian charity and an absolute ruler. God will reward senators who vote for helping the poor, and probably won't reward those who instead disdain that and prefer to keep giving more money for our bloated military.
There is not a set number, I'm not sure if you understand but Christianity is not Judaism or Islam with their meticulous rules. Is the leader giving all the nations wealth to another nation in a parody of colonialism? Anyway let's do a parable how much funds does a father need to send out to other poor families for it to become a sin rather than a virtue? The answer is pretty obvious as long as he is making sure to feed, clothe, and home his own family it is a virtue.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
It's like you're determined to be wrong about literally everything.
Marduk has done a fairly good take-down of your specific points, but there's one thing he hasn't addressed.
Welfare does not help, it actively makes things worse.
We have decades of proof now, about how welfare promotes intergenerational serfdom, single motherhood, high crime, and functionally turns lower classes into serfs whose only expected service to their overlords is voting.