Refugee claimant refused for failing to describe Jesus ‘as a person’

[Rastaman]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/refugee-claimant-refused-for-failing-to-describe-jesus-%E2%80%98as-a-person%E2%80%99/

A Chinese migrant seeking refugee status in Canada on the grounds that he faced persecution back home for his Christian beliefs was repeatedly asked by the Immigration and Refugee Board last year to describe what Jesus was “like as a person.”

The man’s inability to attribute human characteristics to Jesus formed part of the board’s decision to deny his refugee claim.

 

[akimori makoto]

What do you make of this, John?

I am often tempted to take a "legalistic" view about refugee matters, having a background in international law. I am trying to get my heart and my head into the same space on these issues.

 

[JamesRottnek]

"In assessing Mr. Wang’s refugee claim, board adjudicator Daniel McSweeney asked Mr. Wang: “So tell me about Jesus as a person. What was he like?

“Jesus is son of God,” Mr. Wang said.

“I am not asking who he was or what he did. I am asking what is he like as a person,” Mr. McSweeney said.

“Jesus was conceived through the holy ghost and was born in this world,” Mr. Wang replied.

The answer did not satisfy the board member. “Anybody could memorize a creed and recite the creed. I want to know what you believe and what you know of Jesus as a person.”

“In my heart he is my saviour,” Mr. Wang answered.

“That is not . . . again, tell me what Jesus is as a person and this is the last time I am going to ask you.”

It sounds like he wanted Mr. Wang to say something like "Well, he always enjoyed fine wines and his favorite food was lamb, boiled not grilled, and he loved them ladies alright."  I agree with the woman in the article that they should have asked things like "Where do you worship?  How often do you go there?"  Not bizarre questions with no apparent answer.  I mean, I don't even know what he wants since he says that anyone can memorize a creed...yet wants to know what the man believes.  What is a creed except a statement of belief?  This is an absurd ruling and the man should be permitted to stay in the country, the court should have demanded a new test, that actually had an answer.

 

[88Devin12]

Lets hope he came to the USA and is accepted here. Those people were idiots. How Jesus relevant AT ALL to that discussion? He was persecuted, it doesn't matter what for.

 

[akimori makoto]

Lets hope he came to the USA and is accepted here. Those people were idiots. How Jesus relevant AT ALL to that discussion? He was persecuted, it doesn't matter what for.

*Legalism kicks in*

But it does matter what for. You are only a refugee is you are persecuted for reasons of race, religion, membership of a social group, &c. -- there are defined categories at international and in domestic law.

That said, my masters thesis argued exactly what you've said, Devin: that it is persecution per se that should determine refugee status.

 

[Rastaman]

What do you make of this, John?

I am often tempted to take a "legalistic" view about refugee matters, having a background in international law. I am trying to get my heart and my head into the same space on these issues.

I would rather Canada takes an extremely conservative position in accepting refugee claims. Mainly because the system is quite backlogged, they need to be processed faster. Of course in this case, it hits a bit close to home, being that the man is claiming persecution because he is a Christian.

Recently, Canada faced criticism from South Africa for accepted an Afrikaans man as a refugee. It made me proud to be Canadian.

Lets hope he came to the USA and is accepted here. Those people were idiots. How Jesus relevant AT ALL to that discussion? He was persecuted, it doesn't matter what for.

Of course, anyone who makes a claim has to justify that claim. The questions may have been stupid, but questions have to be asked.

 

[Shlomlokh]

Lets hope he came to the USA and is accepted here. Those people were idiots. How Jesus relevant AT ALL to that discussion? He was persecuted, it doesn't matter what for.

Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if the USA turned him down, too.  :-\ Maybe Greece or Russia could take him?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[akimori makoto]

I don't think it's fair to assume this man is, contrary to the judgment of the board/tribunal, actually a Christian and actually experiencing a well-founded fear of persecution.

He may well be but it's not right for us to judge without having all the facts before us, as presumably did the board/tribunal. I note in particular the finding that he had made multiple inconsistent statements: the death knell for any refugee application grounded solely on the word of the applicant.

I have read refugee cases where the applicants have conveniently "turned gay" the moment they are outside the borders of the former country or "converted" to the religion of the destination-country while en route -- people will do all sorts of things in order to secure a happier and more prosperous life in a developed country (you'd be surprised by some of the more fanciful stuff). That doesn't make them legally refugees. Maybe the law should be different but that is a separate argument, isn't it?

PS: the chances of the Greeks sympathising enough with a Chinese Pentecostal to grant him a visa are close to zero.

 

[rakovsky]

"In assessing Mr. Wang’s refugee claim, board adjudicator Daniel McSweeney asked Mr. Wang: “So tell me about Jesus as a person. What was he like?

“Jesus is son of God,” Mr. Wang said.

“I am not asking who he was or what he did. I am asking what is he like as a person,” Mr. McSweeney said.

“Jesus was conceived through the holy ghost and was born in this world,” Mr. Wang replied.

The answer did not satisfy the board member. “Anybody could memorize a creed and recite the creed. I want to know what you believe and what you know of Jesus as a person.”

“In my heart he is my saviour,” Mr. Wang answered.

“That is not . . . again, tell me what Jesus is as a person and this is the last time I am going to ask you.”

It sounds like he wanted Mr. Wang to say something like "Well, he always enjoyed fine wines and his favorite food was lamb, boiled not grilled, and he loved them ladies alright."  I agree with the woman in the article that they should have asked things like "Where do you worship?  How often do you go there?"  Not bizarre questions with no apparent answer.  I mean, I don't even know what he wants since he says that anyone can memorize a creed...yet wants to know what the man believes.  What is a creed except a statement of belief?  This is an absurd ruling and the man should be permitted to stay in the country, the court should have demanded a new test, that actually had an answer.

Well, I can see what the questioner was looking for. He asked what Jesus was like as a person. He could say he was a nice person, he was kind, wise, etc. It seems to me talking about Jesus' preferance to drink wine would work. I admit it's a tough question because the questioner said he doesn't want to hear what Jesus did.

I can see the questioner's goal- he wants to see if the person is really Christian or just pretending to be, without having much idea about it at all. So the judge thinks maybe he is just memorizing common statements like "Jesus is my savior" without really being a Christian.

And by giving really short examples, or and repeating just common sayings, I can see how the questioner can have serious doubt about it.....


But, to get to a broader point, if someone does know alot about Christianity and pretends to be Christian, it would be pretty hard to know without a lie detector test.

 

[88Devin12]

It doesn't matter if he is a "true" Christian or not. He was still persecuted and (IMO) would still be considered a refugee.

 

[rakovsky]

It doesn't matter if he is a "true" Christian or not. He was still persecuted and (IMO) would still be considered a refugee.

Akimori I think pointed out that some people just want to leave for bad economic or societal reasons instead of specific persecution directed against them.
I don't know enough about his case, though. And of course I'm happy when OK people come to America, or um, Canada.

 

[Rastaman]

It doesn't matter if he is a "true" Christian or not. He was still persecuted and (IMO) would still be considered a refugee.

There is no proof of persecution though. It's based on his word. I'm not saying he is lying, but there has to be some standard to which such claims are held.

 

[Shanghaiski]

The investigators should be flogged, and then grilled over their knowledge of Jesus, in order to determine their competency to conduct such an interview.

 

[Kasatkin fan]

The investigators should be flogged, and then grilled over their knowledge of Jesus, in order to determine their competency to conduct such an interview.

Why? If you were asked what Jesus was like as a person would you go into his parentage?

Perhaps I'm odd but I would try to describe some of his personal attributes, perfect man, taught in the synagogues. etc.

Too often Refugee claims are made to queue jump over legitimate immigrants.

Of course the problem is that some missionaries don't bother to teach about Christ, they use only buzz words and that's it.


The Eritrian girls mentioned at the bottom of the article, is perhaps a case of zealousness. I was going to pentacostal services for quite some time, yet never memorized the seven gifts.

 

[88Devin12]

If someone wants to immigrate, then we should allow them. We need to have appropriate measures in place to receive people who don't have appropriate papers.

 

[Rastaman]

If someone wants to immigrate, then we should allow them. We need to have appropriate measures in place to receive people who don't have appropriate papers.

It is a more complex issue than that.

 

[ozgeorge]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

 

[Alpo]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

Yes, we should love our neighbour but I don't think it necessarily means upholding liberal immigration policy. Especially when money which are used for helping immigrants in the West could have been used for helping people in the Thirld World.

 

[ozgeorge]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

Yes, we should love our neighbour but I don't think it necessarily means upholding liberal immigration policy.

I hope Christ is liberal with His immigration policy into His Kingdom.

Especially when money which are used for helping immigrants in the West could have been used for helping people in the Thirld World.

What money is that? I don't know about other countries, but Australia is spending billions of dollars per year in keeping asylum seekers out of the country.

 

[peterfarrington]

There are many millions of recent immigrants into the UK. The vast majority are not those fleeing direct persecution but are economic migrants. Last year another 500,000 arrived. Some will be temporary visitors and will return home. Most will not.

We are a small country and our social cohesion and cultural integity is being undermined. Many of those who have come here do not like our culture and wish to destroy it. One third of Muslim students in British universities believe that violence in the extension of Islam is justified. Most Muslim terrorists in the UK have been welcome here as immigrants.

Is there no value in preserving the nature of a society? Must it be allowed to be destroyed just because those with an antithetical culture wish to come here? Pakistan is an almost entirely Muslim country, yet many millions have left Pakistan because it is not a good place to live, and wish to recreate it here in the UK. Does a population not have some right to reject those who wish to undermine its principles and values?

I am happy for those who are genuine asylum seekers to find a home here, but they make up a vanishingly small fraction of those who come here. At present I know of several Christians who are being denied asylum, while the Government has admitted that it has lost track of hundreds of thousands of others, mainly Muslims, who have no right to remain here and whose claims were judged to be bogus. At present there are 11,000 foreign prisoners in our jails, out of a prison population of 80,000. It is not only the most needy who seek to come to countries such as the UK, it is the criminals, the exploiters of others, the terrorists, the ones who just don't like where they live.

I am entirely comfortable with very strict immigration policies, especially those that protect us from people who wish is harm. We do not have these in the UK but there is popular support for them. But I am also very supportive of genuine asylum cases. The fact that we are overwhelmed with Muslim economic migrants has meant that it is harder for the genuine cases to be discovered.

 

[ozgeorge]

Most Muslim terrorists in the UK have been welcome here as immigrants.

Were they Asylum Seekers? There is a real as well as legal difference between an immigrant and an Asylum Seeker.

Is there no value in preserving the nature of a society?

Societies do not have "natures", they have mores, values, laws, and customs.
I think the case in the OP shows the kind of "protection of society values" which you are talking about. This Chinese Christian was  denied Asylum simply because he didn't view Jesus as his "homeboy"- something which an Orthodox Christian wouldn't do either.

Does a population not have some right to reject those who wish to undermine its principles and values?

Sure. But don't you actually have to prove that people seeking Asylum are actually trying to undermine the population's principles and values....or do you simply tar all people who are muslim with the same brush? If someone is fleeing persecution in a Muslim country, what do you think the likelihood is that they want to make their country of asylum resemble the one they are fleeing?

At present there are 11,000 foreign prisoners in our jails, out of a prison population of 80,000.

Hmmm...that could be interpreted a few ways. Perhaps one is that it is a reflection on the judiciary's attitudes to foreigners.

 

[peterfarrington]

The vast majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are bogus and are economic migrants or those who are on the run from legitimate prosecution in their home countries. There are hundreds of thousands of Asylum cases which have been rejected. In almost all cases the asylum seeker has travelled through 3 or 5 completely safe European countries on his way to the UK. Why is the UK so popular? Why are there well established routes all the way from central Africa to Dover? It is because the benefits are so high for anyone reaching the UK. A great many illegal aliens dop not claim asylum until they have been discovered and are about to be sent home.

You were criticising those who believe that there should be immigration policies NOT just asylum policies.

Britain has generally always welcomed those who face persecution of various kinds. The Hugenots came here. The Greek-Cypriots. The Ugandan Indians. These have integrated into British society.

But the millions of Muslims who have come in the past decade or so very often do not wish to integrate. Pakistan IS a Muslim state but many Pakistani Muslims do not like living there. When they come here they certainly DO try to recreate rural Pakistan in Britain. The benefits are clear. Britain has some of the best and most generous social services in the world. A Pakistani family can be given a home, weekly payments worth more than a working British persons salary, free health care, and the liberty to complain about how the kaffirs all deserve to be wiped out. No wonder Muslims want to come here.

But the Christian from Egypt, who just wants to be able to visit family and not even settle, is unable to gain any sort of visa.

You don't live in the UK. If you are in Australia then I do not believe, off the top of my head, that the most popular babies name in your capital city is Mohammed, nor that by 2060, due to high Muslim birth rates, you will become a minority people in your own country. It is happening here in the UK.

 

[ozgeorge]

The vast majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are bogus and are economic migrants or those who are on the run from legitimate prosecution in their home countries.

That's a pretty bold claim. Could you please provide a source for these stats or some concrete evidence to support it?
I'll just do a dance while I wait.

 

[genesisone]

If someone wants to immigrate, then we should allow them. We need to have appropriate measures in place to receive people who don't have appropriate papers.

How I wish it were as easy as that! As far as the original post is concerned, it seems to me that the authorities may have been aware of inconsistencies that weren't reported. Remember, we are dependent on the media. Has a complete transcript of the interview been made public?

But to my own issue: my daughter-in-law has been waiting for nearly two years to become a permanent resident of Canada (she's a US citizen). Immigration constantly gives her the run-around. She has had to refile some papers and get another physical examination because earlier papers expired while sitting on the pile! It's really frustrating that someone who tries to get in legitimately is discouraged from doing so, but we so often read of "refugee claimants" (yes - too many of them are false, IMHO) who get accepted in the blink of an eye.

All of that being said, I think it's unfortunate that so little attention is paid to persecuted Christians especially in the Middle East by Canada in particular and the West generally.

(I'm trying really hard to keep this from being political and to focus on the need for compassion and discernment.)

 

[peterfarrington]

2007-2011 there have been about 100,000 Asylum applications to the UK.

Of these about 17,000 were granted.

The rest were refused, and therefore (except for wrong decisions) were considered not to be genuine asylum cases at all.

These are Government figures.

 

[ozgeorge]

2007-2011 there have been about 100,000 Asylum applications to the UK.

Of these about 17,000 were granted.

The rest were refused, and therefore (except for wrong decisions) were considered not to be genuine asylum cases at all.

These are Government figures.

I knew you'd say that! Just what I was waiting for!
Now, these current "Government figures" are all since the 1990's when your Government (and mine) decided to "get tough on asylum".
What these figures show is not that your claim is true that:

The vast majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are bogus and are economic migrants or those who are on the run from legitimate prosecution in their home countries.

Rather, these figures simply show how many Asylum Seekers were rejected by your Government. Under the Border Agency Rules introduced since your Government decided to "get tough on asylum" since the 90's, anyone who seeks Asylum in the UK who passed through a different country to the one they fled to get to the UK is automatically refused asylum. I refer you to Section 345 Subsection 2 (1) of your Asylum Rules which states:

The Secretary of State shall not issue a certificate under Part 2, 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 unless:

   (i) the asylum applicant has not arrived in the United Kingdom directly from the country in which he claims to fear persecution and has had an opportunity at the border or within the third country or territory to make contact with the authorities of that third country or territory in order to seek their protection; or

   (ii) there is other clear evidence of his admissibility to a third country or territory.

What this means is that if a person fleeing persecution in another country flees to the UK, and in their journey they pass through or near the border of a third country, they will not be granted Asylum in the UK. Now this rule holds regardless of whether or not that third country is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.
So if I were a Copt fleeing persecution in Egypt and pass through Libya on my way to seek asylum in the UK, I will automatically be refused Asylum by the UK Government. Does this make my Asylum claim "bogus"? Just because your government has been rejecting asylum claims since 1990, doesn't mean those asylum claims are "bogus" as you suggest. It simply means the rules were changed to keep them out.

So I'm still waiting for proof of your claim that "the vast majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are bogus".

 

[peterfarrington]

Sorry, I don't have time to play games.

Come and live here and see what it is like.

If someone is afraid for their life and reaches Italy, then travels through France, why do they need to claim asylum in Britain?

This is an entirely reasonable rule.

 

[ozgeorge]

Sorry, I don't have time to play games.

Nor do I, which is why I presented you with facts rather personal opinion.

Come and live here and see what it is like.

No thanks, I have enough trouble dealing with I'll-informed and racist treatment and attitudes to asylum seekers in my own country. Feel free to google "Geoge Georgiadis asylum seekers" for some Aussie news reports. And don't worry about spreading the word, I receive death threats on a daily basis for what I do. An average of 7 by email per day and one letter in the mail weekly. So please don't try and tell me that "I don't know what it's like".

If someone is afraid for their life and reaches Italy, then travels through France, why do they need to claim asylum in Britain?

You and I both know that's not what the law says. It doesn't matter what country they pass through, they will be rejected. And why should Britain not take it's share of refugees when there are third world countries which take more refugees than Britain?

This is an entirely reasonable rule.

You think so? So when the UK refuses to grant asylum to a Coptic Christian fleeing Egypt simply because he passed through Libya on the way to Britain, we won't hear you complain about this "entirely reasonable rule" of yours?

 

[Orest]

I don't like people who are queue jumpers.  The man originally came to Canada on a work visa and it ran out.  Let him go back home and apply through the regular channels.  My family has been in Canada for over a 100 years and followed the rules to come to Canada.
Glad to see that the immigration people are going their job.

 

[ozgeorge]

I don't like people who are queue jumpers.  The man originally came to Canada on a work visa and it ran out.  Let him go back home and apply through the regular channels.  My family has been in Canada for over a 100 years and followed the rules to come to Canada.
Glad to see that the immigration people are going their job.

Where are the qeues to line up in when you ate fleeing somewhere that will torture and kill you for practicing your faith? If it was you, wouldn't you use any means available to you to get out? If we make it so hard for desperate people to seek asylum, then they will use whatever means they can, so they will apply for other visas or use people smugglers- and then we blame them for using people smugglers or applying for other visas! And what if he became a Christian while in Canada? Should he be punished for it by being sent back to China so that he can't practice his faith?

 

[Orest]

I don't like people who are queue jumpers.  The man originally came to Canada on a work visa and it ran out.  Let him go back home and apply through the regular channels.  My family has been in Canada for over a 100 years and followed the rules to come to Canada.
Glad to see that the immigration people are going their job.

Where are the qeues to line up in when you ate fleeing somewhere that will torture and kill you for practicing your faith? If it was you, wouldn't you use any means available to you to get out? If we make it so hard for desperate people to seek asylum, then they will use whatever means they can, so they will apply for other visas or use people smugglers- and then we blame them for using people smugglers or applying for other visas! And what if he became a Christian while in Canada? Should he be punished for it by being sent back to China so that he can't practice his faith?

Canada has an excellent reputation for accepting real refugees.  But I don’t think this man was a refugee.  He only applied for refugee status when his work visa ran out and was not renewed.  If he were really a refugee why didn’t he apply for refugee status the minute he arrived as others do?
He is a queue jumper trying to sneak in.  For example, a while back there was a swarm of Portuguese immigrants claiming refugee status  claiming religious persecution as members of the Jehovah’s Whiteness sect.  The refugee board members noticed the  claimants were wearing crosses around their necks and could not answer questions about the Jehovah’s Whiteness faith.

 

[ozgeorge]

I don't like people who are queue jumpers.  The man originally came to Canada on a work visa and it ran out.  Let him go back home and apply through the regular channels.  My family has been in Canada for over a 100 years and followed the rules to come to Canada.
Glad to see that the immigration people are going their job.

Where are the qeues to line up in when you ate fleeing somewhere that will torture and kill you for practicing your faith? If it was you, wouldn't you use any means available to you to get out? If we make it so hard for desperate people to seek asylum, then they will use whatever means they can, so they will apply for other visas or use people smugglers- and then we blame them for using people smugglers or applying for other visas! And what if he became a Christian while in Canada? Should he be punished for it by being sent back to China so that he can't practice his faith?

Canada has an excellent reputation for accepting real refugees.  But I don’t think this man was a refugee.  He only applied for refugee status when his work visa ran out and was not renewed.  If he were really a refugee why didn’t he apply for refugee status the minute he arrived as others do?
He is a queue jumper trying to sneak in.  For example, a while back there was a swarm of Portuguese immigrants claiming refugee status  claiming religious persecution as members of the Jehovah’s Whiteness sect.  The refugee board members noticed the  claimants were wearing crosses around their necks and could not answer questions about the Jehovah’s Whiteness faith.

I know of Canada's excellent history of assessing refugee claims, and I hope that Canada will not go the way of my own country of Australia and the UK in creating laws designed to keep refugees out.
There are many reasons that asylum seekers don't immediately apply for asylum, for example, if you apply for a protection visa, you are not allowed to work- so how do you live? Also, we need to remember that these people are fleeing corrupt governments who want to improson, torture and kill them- so they don't trust authorities to have their best interests at heart.

 

[David 2007]

George,

you are a legend mate. Thanks for all the work you do.

cheers

 

[Kasatkin fan]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

The whole refugee process is designed to find out who is the "least of these little ones". The reason we have the process is because people who aren't among the least abuse it, which is sad because it makes the process harder for those who need it.

 

[ozgeorge]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

The whole refugee process is designed to find out who is the "least of these little ones". The reason we have the process is because people who aren't among the least abuse it, which is sad because it makes the process harder for those who need it.

I don't think Christ will ask me what my Government's policy was to "the least of these little one's" because He won't be deciding for "Governments", rather, He will be deciding for each one of us individually. And Governments in democracies decide their policies based on popularist opinions. Here in Australia, the popularist opinion is "keep 'em out". If that popularist opinion becomes xenophobic and seeks to keep asylum seekers out of the country (as it is here in Australia), the Government's policy will be designed accordingly. So when we start seeking to refuse protection to people as individuals for whatever reason (and for which we will be personally accountable) the collective opinion will be reflected in Government policy (for which we are only accountable insofar as we contributed to it).
In Australia, this has been highlighted recently with the plan to move 4000 Asylum Seekers being held in detention to Malaysia (a country which we have documented and video evidence of torture and abuse of Asylum Seekers and which, unlike us, is not a signatory to the UN convention on Refugees). This plan is popular among Australians. However a few days ago, the Australian Government banned live cattle exports to Indonesia because of public reaction to recently aired video evidence of animal cruelty. The disparity between attitudes to cruelty to animals and attitudes to cruelty to human beings is incredible! I would hate to have to answer to Christ for seeking to treat cows better than people.

 

[Jharek Carnelian]

You don't live in the UK. If you are in Australia then I do not believe, off the top of my head, that the most popular babies name in your capital city is Mohammed, nor that by 2060, due to high Muslim birth rates, you will become a minority people in your own country. It is happening here in the UK.

I DO however live in the UK, in Hackney in East London to be specifc, and the claim that by  2060 Muslims will out number all other peoples is one I'd like to see supported. Also if Muslims are born here it will be as much their country as yours it could be contended.

 

[Rastaman]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

The whole refugee process is designed to find out who is the "least of these little ones". The reason we have the process is because people who aren't among the least abuse it, which is sad because it makes the process harder for those who need it.

I don't think Christ will ask me what my Government's policy was to "the least of these little one's" because He won't be deciding for "Governments", rather, He will be deciding for each one of us individually. And Governments in democracies decide their policies based on popularist opinions. Here in Australia, the popularist opinion is "keep 'em out". If that popularist opinion becomes xenophobic and seeks to keep asylum seekers out of the country (as it is here in Australia), the Government's policy will be designed accordingly. So when we start seeking to refuse protection to people as individuals for whatever reason (and for which we will be personally accountable) the collective opinion will be reflected in Government policy (for which we are only accountable insofar as we contributed to it).
In Australia, this has been highlighted recently with the plan to move 4000 Asylum Seekers being held in detention to Malaysia (a country which we have documented and video evidence of torture and abuse of Asylum Seekers and which, unlike us, is not a signatory to the UN convention on Refugees). This plan is popular among Australians. However a few days ago, the Australian Government banned live cattle exports to Indonesia because of public reaction to recently aired video evidence of animal cruelty. The disparity between attitudes to cruelty to animals and attitudes to cruelty to human beings is incredible! I would hate to have to answer to Christ for seeking to treat cows better than people.

But you are painting in broad strokes an issue that is not quite so simple. Taking in the numbers of refugees and immigrants that we do comes at a cost to the Canadian people.

The reality is that gov'ts make tough decisions on where to spend taxpayer dollars. The money we spend taking in the people we do take in could just as easily be given to municipalities to pay for more homeless shelters, to the provinces to pay for more social services, or even to the tax payer directly. It is one thing to take in those who are needy; it is another to ignore our neighbour who is also needy in order to do so.

That is not to say we shouldn't take in refugees and encourage immigration. But in doing so, we should be aware of the potential costs--costs that are both societal and fiscal.

 

[greekischristian]

Lets hope he came to the USA and is accepted here. Those people were idiots. How Jesus relevant AT ALL to that discussion? He was persecuted, it doesn't matter what for.

*Legalism kicks in*

But it does matter what for. You are only a refugee is you are persecuted for reasons of race, religion, membership of a social group, &c. -- there are defined categories at international and in domestic law.

I kinda miss legalism, so let me try.

While I'm not sure of this individual's exact affiliation, it was mentioned that he was Pentecostal. Many Pentecostals, so-called Oneness Pentecostals, deny trinity, or at least deny the trinity as it was understood at the Council of Nicaea. They believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not merely of the same Nature but literally the same person. Add to this that their expression of their believes related to the trinity are rather crude and undeveloped by traditional Christian standards; it is rather understandable that this individual had difficulty asking what Christ was like as a person. It is likely that he considers God and not a Person...we should keep in mind that Chinese Pentecostal convert is highly unlikely to be able to be able to separate 'personhood' from 'human' and would likely interpret any suggestion that Christ is a person/human as a denial of his divinity, especially since I seriously doubt he's well versed in the proceedings and decisions of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Looking at the interview, it seems that the adjudicator is not asking questions that would determine whether or not Mr. Wang is a Pentecostal, but instead is asking whether or not Mr. Wang identifies with his own view of Christianity. Looking at the interview it seems that Mr. McSweeney is wholly unqualified to judge the personal beliefs of Mr. Wang and errored by his very attempt to do so.

That said, my masters thesis argued exactly what you've said, Devin: that it is persecution per se that should determine refugee status.

That would be reasonable, the question that Mr. Wang should have been asked is 'What evidence can you present to demonstrate that you were persecuted in China for an action, characteristic, or belief, which would have not subjected you to criminal prosecution in Canada?' Whether he actually engaged in said action, displayed said characteristic, or held said belief should be irrelevant to the proceedings.

 

[Kasatkin fan]

ME ON MY DEATHBED: Lord! Lord! Save me from these demons who are surrounding me and wish to drag my soul into eternal fire! Give me refuge in Your Kingdom!

CHRIST: With whatever yardstick you have measured you shall be measured; and what you did to the least of these little ones, you did to Me. So tell Me, how did you treat those who sought refuge with you during your lifetime?

The whole refugee process is designed to find out who is the "least of these little ones". The reason we have the process is because people who aren't among the least abuse it, which is sad because it makes the process harder for those who need it.

I don't think Christ will ask me what my Government's policy was to "the least of these little one's" because He won't be deciding for "Governments", rather, He will be deciding for each one of us individually. And Governments in democracies decide their policies based on popularist opinions. Here in Australia, the popularist opinion is "keep 'em out". If that popularist opinion becomes xenophobic and seeks to keep asylum seekers out of the country (as it is here in Australia), the Government's policy will be designed accordingly. So when we start seeking to refuse protection to people as individuals for whatever reason (and for which we will be personally accountable) the collective opinion will be reflected in Government policy (for which we are only accountable insofar as we contributed to it).
In Australia, this has been highlighted recently with the plan to move 4000 Asylum Seekers being held in detention to Malaysia (a country which we have documented and video evidence of torture and abuse of Asylum Seekers and which, unlike us, is not a signatory to the UN convention on Refugees). This plan is popular among Australians. However a few days ago, the Australian Government banned live cattle exports to Indonesia because of public reaction to recently aired video evidence of animal cruelty. The disparity between attitudes to cruelty to animals and attitudes to cruelty to human beings is incredible! I would hate to have to answer to Christ for seeking to treat cows better than people.

First off, you say the government doesn't care about government but the individual stance, then you go on to popular opinion.

Second, this story in not about Australia, but about Canada. Whatever ills Australia has in its refugee system, that does not reflect the case mentioned in this thread.

Your insistence that Canada must let this man, who doesn't seem to know anything about what Christ did, in to its country ahead of legitimate immigrants because the Australian system is broken the other way, is a non sequitur and has no bearing on either this case in general or legitimate immigration vs. refugee immigration in general. The fact is that the many who abuse the system are just trying to jump the queue and are keeping those who actually obey the laws out longer.

 

[Kasatkin fan]

While I'm not sure of this individual's exact affiliation, it was mentioned that he was Pentecostal. Many Pentecostals, so-called Oneness Pentecostals, deny trinity, or at least deny the trinity as it was understood at the Council of Nicaea. They believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not merely of the same Nature but literally the same person. Add to this that their expression of their believes related to the trinity are rather crude and undeveloped by traditional Christian standards; it is rather understandable that this individual had difficulty asking what Christ was like as a person. It is likely that he considers God and not a Person...we should keep in mind that Chinese Pentecostal convert is highly unlikely to be able to be able to separate 'personhood' from 'human' and would likely interpret any suggestion that Christ is a person/human as a denial of his divinity, especially since I seriously doubt he's well versed in the proceedings and decisions of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

While perhaps the question would be better phrased as "what was Jesus like as an individual", I get the feeling we are looking at translations, so the point becomes moot.