Matthew 25 and Immigration Policy

[Rain]

Thank you for answering about the things that article said.  I felt punched in the gut about it and just couldn't.   I have never visited a camp and most of my work is not directly with refugees, but I have worked with many caseworkers, many of whom were refugees themselves, and they do so much.

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I've worked alongside IOM and EMM in refugee camps to help resettle refugees to the USA. 

Most refugees will pay their travel loans back, eventually. Let's say 90% of travel loans are paid back.

That's one thing people don't know.  Those flights are not always the cheapest either. Not only that the government requires that they have certain items - some of which they may not use.   While they are given $900 to start all those items and rent is supposed to come out of that.  Anything more becomes a loan. 

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

25% of that goes back to EMM for doing the incredibly complicated work of organizing the travel of refugees around the world. I can't stress enough how complicated it is to, for example, take a Burmese migrant from a war zone who has never used electricity in their life and transfer them and their families to a place like Utah, where they are expected to not only immediately assimilate, but to quickly find a job to pay off their loans. All the while, everyone around them is giving them the sideeye because they don't believe refugees should be allowed in the USA, or worse, they are treated like undocumented migrants and shouted at in Walmart to go back to their countries, which by the way is still an active war zone.

To make matters worse, all federal funding for refugee resettlement programs has been frozen last week. Not only that, but funding for food and medical centers in refugee camps has also been frozen.

 

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I just spoke to some friends in the camps who were on the list to be resettled in the USA. They are being told they are no longer going. Their hospitals have been closed, last week.

Myanmar refugees face sudden discharge from Thai hospitals shuttered by US aid freeze

Their food distribution is at risk. They can't legally cross the border into Thailand, so their only option is to take their families back to their burned out villages and pray as fighter jets rain bombs down on them. 

And through all this, those working in such desperate circumstances (I can assure you there is no glamor in it and the IOM, IRC and EMM salaries for most on the ground are half of what you'd get working McDonalds in Orem) in the camps are being accused of grifting and scamming American taxpayers.

Yes, caseworkers, interpreters, those who help with paperwork and finding jobs. 

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Sure, there are problems to solve with immigration, but shutting everything down and turning our backs on those who could use our help is dangerously close to becoming IMO, immoral.

Not dangerously close the way it was done.  Just plain immoral.

Edited February 4, 2025 by Rain

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is an aspect of the current discussion/debate about immigration policy that I think does not get enough attention, namely, the financial incentives involved.  If money, huge amounts of it, were not involved in ushering in hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people into the United States via illegal means, and if we were instead speaking about the matter in purely humanitarian terms, then I think advocacy for Open Borders might have a little more purchase (but not much, since it is still a hugely harmful idea).

As it is, though, huge amounts of money are in play in this context, and with that money comes incentives to to usher in as many illegal aliens as possible.  Moreover, that money seems to be cropping up in some interesting places. 

See, for example, this article about Bishop Budde: Episcopal bishop lectures Trump while earning taxpayer millions to bring migrants into US

Some excerpts:

Wow.  That works out to nearly $15,000 per individual ($14,722.22).  To the tune of $53 million dollars per year.  That's quite a gravy train of taxpayer money going to the Episcopal Church. 

Was keeping this gravy train going part of Bishop Budde's calculus when she was writing her "sermon to President Trump," whose administration she likely - and correctly - surmised might scrutinize government expenditures, including the one paying tens of millions of dollars to the Episcopal Church?

Was any part of Bishop Budde's call for "mercy" influenced by the financial self interest considerations of the Episcopal Church?

Let's see, at $14,722.22 per head, that works out to around $94,222.22 of taxpayer money going into the coffers of the Episcopal Church.

I wonder how much, if any, of that money is not spent on "taxpayer-funded government programs" and instead is used to subsidize other financial needs of the Episcopal Church, which, like so many others, has been in substantial decline for a while now (see, e.g., here).  

"{A}ffiliates," such as the Episcopal Church, "have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease."

That "incentive" is, it seems, a financial one.

Huh.  So what Bishop Budde's sermon a lobbying effort?

I don't know that I have a particularized objection to religious groups having the ability to "lobby" in D.C., except to the extent such lobbying includes efforts along the lines of "Hey, Federal Government, please give us more taxpayer money."

"{P}ublic money has pretty much driven out private money in all resettlement programs."

I wonder if this is accurate.

I wonder how much money the Episcopal Church has made off of these programs.

I am curious as to how the irreligious/secular folks on this board feel about the foregoing.  It seems like there is a lot of public money flowing into the coffers of religious groups, under the auspices of "immigration."

Interesting stuff.

Reading the above article made me curious as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receives any federal funding for any of its humanitarian/philanthropic work.  AFAICS, the answer appears to be "No."

See, e.g., here: LDS Charities and Faith-Based Humanitarian Aid (published in The Yale Review of International Studies)

If anyone has further information on this, I would like to see it.  

I suspect that in coming days we are going to see a lot of information come out about public money being used to fund supposedly "humanitarian" projects, but which have really has been being used to fund things other than humanitarian projects.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you fact-check any propaganda before posting it?

[Zosimus]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do you fact-check any propaganda before posting it?

The title alone should have been enough of a red flag. But one thing in there really exposes the author's ignorance and laziness:

"EMM resettles fewer than 10 individuals from Vietnam annually, but it raises the question: Why, 50 years after the end of the Vietnam War, are we still running a taxpayer-funded program to help people immigrate from Vietnam to the US?"

A single Google search will explain why EMM is still resettling refugees from Vietnam and Laos. They were our allies in the Vietnam War. After we abandoned them, they are still fighting the consequences of our ill-conceived America First policies of the 1970s.

Here's a clip of some of those that fought alongside America still clutching to their loaded guns they were given 50 years ago:

The Lost Tribe: The CIA’s Secret Army in Laos

Its sad that we can't find the budget, or the will, to continue doing whatever we can to get them out of Vietnam War they are still fighting for our sakes. Good grief.

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Question #1: Was all of that $54M spent on refugee resettlement efforts?

All of it went to EMM, not to the Episcopalian Church proper. Whether all of it went to "refugee resettlement efforts" might depend upon your perspective. From the Federal government's perspective, 100% of it did, by definition. I haven't seen EMM's financial statements, but as far as I can tell, it isn't enough to cover their expenses.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Question #2: From the NY Post article:

Assuming this description is accurate, does this alter your assessment of government money going into the coffers of the Episcopal Church?  It sure looks like this is happening.  This arrangement indicates that while EMM's primary funding is designated for resettlement services, there is a financial relationship where funds flow to The Episcopal Church through commissions on repaid travel loans.

Taxpayers pay taxes --> taxed funds go to the International Organization for Migration --> IOM loans $ for refugees' airfare --> Some refugees pay back that $ --> Episcopal Church receives 25% of the repaid money (which, again, originated with taxpayers).

I'm not sure how to read your spreadsheet, but it looks like line items 21 and 456b ("Refugee Loan Collection Income") shows $1,150,000.00.  Is that 1.15M in money from taxpayers?

I hadn't noticed this detail. Looking at it even closer, a few points. The $1,150,000 income is for three years (2025-2027), which comes out to about $380k per year. From the description at the top of the page, this "income [source] offset[s] expenses in program areas". If you look on page 18, there is a section called "Refugee Ministry (Non-Government) [expenses]" that includes, over 3 years:

• $160,000 in Department Costs (line 454),
• $949,836 in Refugee Non-Govt Staff Costs (457),
• $405,000 Refugee Loan Collection Other Expenses (455)
• $912,511 of Refugee Loan Collection Staff Cost (456)

When you add all of this together and subtract the $1,150,000 of Refugee Loan Collection Income (456b) and the $450,000 of additional "EMM Non-Govt Fundraising", the EMM still costs their church a net $827,346. I haven't looked at it very closely, but that is what I see.

As you may know, I'm a huge proponent of financial transparency, and I think it is perfectly fine to scrutinize these numbers and question everything. If the $2.4 million of triennial expenses I identified above were all being funneled into Bishop Budde's pocket rather than being used to efficiently administer the program, then yes, I would see a scandal here. But from what I've seen so far, in aggregate this program costs the Episcopalians  more than they receive from the government and that they do it for sincere religious reasons (e.g. see the title of this thread) and not as a way to get rich from the government.

As a U.S. taxpayer, I really don't know if paying them 25% of loan repayments is a good deal or not. If the Episcopalians weren't doing all of this work to integrate these refugees into our society and make them productive, how much of the loans would be repaid? I have no idea, but it's easy to imagine that as a taxpayer, this is a win-win for the government, the Episcopalians, the tax payers, and the refugees.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff, except that I think I prefer the Church's non-acceptance of government $ for stuff like this.

Before you get too self righteous about your Church, you need to look at the big picture. Every year, your Church makes many billions of dollars in its hedge fund activities, and doesn't use any of that revenue for religious or charitable endeavors. Furthermore, it doesn't pay taxes on that income either. So it doesn't use the money to make the world a better place, and it doesn't pay taxes on it, either. It just saves it. Here is the problem: from an ethical perspective, it has the moral obligation to pay taxes on it, because these profits wouldn't be possible if it weren't for everything the government does for the Church.

For example, the Church has probably made something like $2 billion in profit off of Apple stock over the last decade. However, accruing this value would have been impossible without the U.S. Government:

• The government has spent billions on education and research that made Apple products and surrounding technology possible
• The government has spent billions developing trade relations with China where iPhones are built, and with markets around the world where the phones are sold
• The government has spent trillions on a Navy that makes it possible for Apple to ship its products in international waters without the threat of piracy
• The government has spent billions enforcing security laws and regulations, which make Apple's capitalization, and the Church's ability to participate in it, possible
• The government has spent billions on the infrastructure that makes it possible to ship products and have access to the electricity and connectivity needed to run them
• The government has spent billions on a society with law and order so that people can invest in such things with confidence and look to the future

Can you see why it would be impossible for Apple to exist in its current form without our society backing it, and that it would be impossible for that society to exist without trillions of dollars invested in our society by the government and the taxpayers who fund it?

Because of that, good citizens, including corporate citizens, should happily pay taxes. I'm against government waste, red tape, needly bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency, sure. But it isn't a coincidence that the wealthiest society in the history of mankind has a strong federal government. The financial beneficiaries of our civilization have a moral obligation to fund it, including your Church. And your church isn't pullings its fair share.

Perhaps what the Church is doing is legal, but presumably what the Episcopalians are doing is legal, too. This conversation is about what's morally right and not merely what's legal, correct?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

My, but you are certainly accommodating when the Latter-day Saints are in the crosshairs.  If this story was about the Church or its affiliated programs being the direct recipient of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, I think you would be . . . pretty unhappy about that.

If the LDS Church's subsidies from the federal government were only in the range of tens of millions per year, I'd be ecstatic. As it is, the subsidies are in the multiple billions per year--it reaps massive financial benefits from the government, but doesn't pay its fair share, neither directly in taxes, nor indirectly through charitable endeavors. If it was doing something truly valuable with this money that would be one thing, but it isn't--all its doing is hoarding it for a "rainy day". The government shouldn't be subsidizing this kind of thing.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the Church was receiving federal $, you might have a point about hypocrisy.  But it apparently doesn't, so you apparently don't.

If you really think this is true, it just shows how little you understand finance.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am glad that the Church has its financial ducks in a row...

The Church is extraordinarily secretive with its finances, so there is no way to know if this is true or not. 

Edited February 4, 2025 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

This makes me weep, but grateful for you sharing personal experience and knowledge of what’s really going on.

It's sickening, how one of the best countries is now behaving this way.

[Zosimus]

Saw this Letter from Episcopal Church leaders on Trump administration immigration executive orders linked to in a news article about Bishop Budde in my feed and thought this part relevant to the topic here:

"As Christians, our faith is shaped by the biblical story of people whom God led into foreign countries to escape oppression. Exodus tells us the story of the ancient Israelites escaping slavery in the land of Egypt and wandering in the wilderness without a home. In Leviticus 19:33-34, God commands that we remember this sojourn as part of our own story of faith: “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”
 
Now, as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:12-19, we are no longer aliens. Christ Jesus has made us citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. As we read in 1 Peter 2:9-12, we have received God’s mercy, and we must demonstrate this sacrificial love in our lives and deeds. Because our true citizenship is not here on earth but in heaven, we are called to transcend the earthly distinctions made among us by the leaders of this world. We must proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is promised to the persecuted and answer Christ’s call to welcome the stranger among us. 
 
This vision of God’s kingdom, this new reality, is the one to which we Christians are pledged in our baptism above any political preference or policy, and to which our church must bear witness through word and deed. This sacred call shapes both our churchwide commitment to stand with migrants and the ministries of congregations across our church who serve vulnerable immigrants and refugees in their communities."

[manol]

@Benjamin McGuire, I just wanted to acknowledge this thread's effect on me.

Your first few posts shocked me into reconsidering and abandoning my apathy on the subject of immigration policy.  I had been “compartmentalizing”, and not allowing my views on morality (and on that parable in particular) to inform my views on an inconvenient social/political topic.

Thank you for the wake-up call.

Edited February 5, 2025 by manol

[Tacenda]

I guess the president is offering gold cards to wealthy foreigners that want to come the United States. Heck with the farm workers or the people that make it so we can eat, but give them to elitists I guess. 

I think this is breaking the camel's back in my world at the moment. I just want to scream at how this can happen to a country I was once very proud of. I'm hoping its' citizens will keep it that way, I pray. I tried to feel patriotism as my class I taught said the pledge of allegiance but it was very sad for me during saying it and wondering how those 5th grade students are going to fare in the coming months, years. 

I hope God will provide a way, or maybe we'll be like those countries that have a dictator and we'll understand even more how those people that flee to come here feel. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/trump-floats-gold-card-grant-residency-wealthy-foreigners-00206116

[Tacenda]

Then this came on right after the news of the gold card, I can't take it. "Leave now, or we will find you and we will deport you."

 

Edited February 26, 2025 by Tacenda

[Zosimus]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the president is offering gold cards to wealthy foreigners that want to come the United States.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, $5 million dollars"

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the president is offering gold cards to wealthy foreigners that want to come the United States. Heck with the farm workers or the people that make it so we can eat, but give them to elitists I guess. 

I think this is breaking the camel's back in my world at the moment. I just want to scream at how this can happen to a country I was once very proud of. I'm hoping its' citizens will keep it that way, I pray. I tried to feel patriotism as my class I taught said the pledge of allegiance but it was very sad for me during saying it and wondering how those 5th grade students are going to fare in the coming months, years. 

I hope God will provide a way, or maybe we'll be like those countries that have a dictator and we'll understand even more how those people that flee to come here feel. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/trump-floats-gold-card-grant-residency-wealthy-foreigners-00206116

Bunch of low-class hick immigrants. If you are a real quality immigrant you buy Platinum status.

[Peacefully]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Bunch of low-class hick immigrants. If you are a real quality immigrant you buy Platinum status.

Gotta get that American Express Black card to rate. 

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Gotta get that American Express Black card to rate. 

I don’t know. That sounds like DEI gone crazy to me.