Don’t assume that everyone in the ‘caring class’ is on the same page when it comes to the idea of permanent refugee resettlement into the first world.

Here is a piece from the Vancouver Sun (thanks to ‘pungentpeppers’) that will give you something to think about (when I say you, I mean all of those US refugee resettlement employees and volunteers working day and night to fill the US with needy migrants, who will stay here permanently, all in the name of humanitarian compassion for the downtrodden).

(I am assuming you are legitimately concerned for the world’s poor and not just flooding America with future Leftwing voters, or in the case of Republican RINOs with cheap foreign laborers, or want to keep your job.)

This is the caption from under a photo of Syrian refugees (emphasis is mine):

“The purpose of asylum in conflict situations is not to confer a permanently transformed life onto the fortunate minority who are able to get out,” Paul Collier says, “but to preserve the country’s critically important skilled and politically engaged people until it is safe for them to return to rebuild their society.”

Here is Douglas Todd writing at the Vancouver Sun about ten days ago:

Many Canadians make the case for compassion when they maintain the country should retain one of the world’s most generous rates for welcoming immigrants and refugees.

Canadians’ hearts go out when they hear about people struggling in countries like Guatemala, the Philippines, India and Lebanon. We tend to believe Canada has a duty to offer a better life.

Many Canadians want to be especially kind when they read about conflict-ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq, Burma, Sudan and Libya. Surely richer countries can embrace more of these suffering people?

It’s an understandable feeling. Compassion is key to virtually every spiritual world view and most secular philosophies. And there is no doubt many people are facing unimaginable hardship — particularly the roughly one billion at the bottom of the global economy.

But informed voices are warning that rich countries’ policies regarding immigration and asylum seekers are not nearly as compassionate as many want to think they are. Indeed, our migration policies may be doing more harm than good, especially for the most desperate.

This is by no means an issue just for Canadians. Europeans are engaged in a frank debate about the conflict between compassion and social realism in regards to asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa. Thousands are arriving each week, in dangerously fragile boats, onto Europe’s shores, trying particularly to get to the north where there are more job opportunities and better welfare.

In the U.S., according to a July Gallup poll, immigration has also recently surged to become the leading issue as a flood of children from Latin America illegally cross the U.S. border, trying to escape economic dysfunction, a dearth of social services and crime.

Like in Canada, it is often open-hearted American church*** and other religious leaders who join liberals to press for the U.S. to open its borders and welcome virtually all these young asylum seekers, and eventually their parents.

***Todd apparently doesn’t know that the “open-hearted American church” is paid to resettle refugees permanently, but we should forgive him that because the mainstream media never mentions how much money is involved.

There is much more, read it all.  The gist of it is this—-the third-world will continue to decline as long as western countries give asylum (refugee status) PERMANENTLY, so there is no incentive ever for people to go back and fix their homeland.

I’m sorry to say, this view (temporary refuge only) will never catch on because there is way too much money at stake now in the ‘humanitarian industrial complex’ for voices like Todd’s and Collier’s to be heard.