Over the past few days, there has
been much online rancor regarding the degree of probability that many of the
Syrian refugees might be terrorist infiltrators, sent by ISIS to carry out more
attacks like the one in Paris last week. Many liberals have denied not only
that this has ever happened, but that it ever could, a contention which is, in the first part, false, and which is in the second part seemingly unlikely.
From the President down, the left is
insinuating or outright accusing anyone who has any concern about the situation
of racism, hate, and all the usual epithets. But in fact, I have seen no
one claim that all refugees are bad, or that we should not have compassion
toward them. What I have seen is a majority of Americans and
Europeans asking a handful of very legitimate questions, questions I think
the left must be able to answer if it wishes to persuade rather than merely
bully.
1.
Are our governments actually capable
of reasonable safety precautions with these people? Would they engage in those
if they are in fact capable? And would leftists allow them to do so anyway?
2.
If ISIS isn’t using the refugees to
infiltrate us, why aren’t they? It would be stupid of them not to.
3.
If it is true — as has been widely
reported — that as many as 70% of the “refugees” are military-aged single
males, isn’t that incredibly odd? It certainly doesn’t track with Obama’s claim
that they are all widows and orphans. It also raises the question of why we
would ever want to let people benefit from coming here who are abandoning their
country, their towns, and their families in a time of war. (NOTE: As of this writing,
the UN says the number is 62%; however, in this screenshot from early September — when
there were fewer than half as many refugees — the UN placed the number at 72%.)
4.
Is there really no more reasonable,
less intrusive way to accommodate the refugees, presumably closer to home so
that they can return there? Normally, refugees (as opposed to immigrants) want
to go home.
5.
Is it really morally imperative to
ignore any reasonable safety concerns of our own people? Is it really morally
imperative to put the safety of people we don’t know ahead of the safety of our
own women and children whom we are sworn to protect? And if so, what is the
basis for that imperative, particularly since most of the people claiming it
also claim that there are no moral absolutes?
6.
If it is in fact morally imperative
that we override all safety concerns for these refugees, is there any
difference between them and refugees from anywhere else? Or between them and
people who just generally have a bad life somewhere else? Did these same
liberals call for unlimited immigration for the Christian Nigerians attacked by
Boko Haram? The Christian Kenyans attacked by Al Shabaab? (Answer: no, they did
not.) Would their “moral imperative” now extend to unlimited immigration from
anywhere at any time?
7.
Is there any time, place or
circumstance in which we may ever validly consider the interests of Americans?
These questions may sound pointed,
but that’s really just because this discussion is so politically charged. I
don’t think a reasonable objective person would have an issue with the asking
of any of these questions, regardless of their answers.
But the point remains that, to our
leaders, merely asking such questions is most unwelcome. Which is strange: these are the sorts of questions that
almost anyone — anyone without an agenda, at least — would ask, and more than
that, they are the sorts of questions that leaders trying to build consensus
would normally seek to address before there was an outcry.
And it’s not just our leaders. I
wrote these questions originally for a Facebook discussion, with normally
reasonable, fair-minded people. Among them was a West Point graduate with whom
I attended high school, a left-wing Mormon attorney, and several others of
assorted backgrounds, none prone to ugliness or irrationality.
These questions — and others like
them — seemed to make them crazy. Or at least, uncharacteristically
unreasoning. I could never get a straight answer for most of this. I was,
however, told I needed to pray, that Jesus requires we take all these people in
without question, and that anyone who says otherwise is just trying to score
cheap political points with the masses.
But even if we concede most of those
points — because clearly anyone who wants to know whether these new “moral
imperatives” have a basis in anything, or whether they might require us
ultimately to take in tens of millions or for that matter billions of
people, or whether there are adequate safety precautions in place
post-Paris, must be a racist redneck hater with “an agenda” — doesn’t it strike
you as odd that the concerns of a majority of Americans and Europeans simply do
not matter in these people’s minds? That they are dismissed without a thought?
Post-Paris, Donald Trump has surged another 17 points to a
whopping 42%. Marine Le Pen now leads the French presidential field, with 28% to Sarkozy’s 23% and Hollande’s 21%. 76% of UK voters want to scrap automatic entry for EU
migrants. There is serious talk of an
end to the Schengen Zone. And in crucial
swing state Colorado, supposedly forever lost by Republicans to the Democrats, all four of the top Republican presidential
contenders are leading Hillary Clinton by approximately 16 points.
The dismissed (and dissed) majority
is likely to have its say. Perhaps that sentiment will abate with time. But one
wonders: might it not be wiser for certain leftist politicians to attempt
persuasion rather than hectoring? They could start by answering these
questions.
http://affluentinvestor.com/2015/11/refugee-questions-liberals-need-answer/
No comments:
Post a Comment