After the Paris attacks, there was a tremendous amount of noise from both secular and Christian progressives about how morally imperative it was that the United States take in as many refugees as it could. Opponents of this idea (and even those who generally supported it but were cautious and concerned about its implementation) were vilified as xenophobic, heartless, racist, and more. Our Christian brothers posted meme after meme about the Good Samaritan and asking WWJD. Jesus was a refugee, they said; the greatest Apostle of the faith began his career as a terrorist. (Those statements are true.)
Only 2% of the Syrian refugees are military-aged men, the rest are women and children. The screening process is lengthy and deliberate. Refugees are subjected to intense DHS counterterrorism screening. (Those statements are true.) President Obama suggested anyone concerned about taking in refugees was scared of widows and orphans.
Well, San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik was a pregnant woman when she came to the United States, and she passed DHS counterterrorism screening as part of the process of getting a K-1 visa despite listing as her hometown a place in Pakistan that doesn't exist.
I submit that while some people likely are callous toward the plight of refugees, the majority of those who are wary of accepting thousands of refugees are not xenophobic or opposed to giving quarter to those fleeing oppression and destruction. They are wary of this government's competence and ability to maintain the safety of the homeland. The screening refugees undergo is more rigorous than the screening Malik underwent, and the process is lengthier. But people are not unreasonable for being concerned that the government may make similar mistakes.
Americans are more likely to die as a result of slipping in the shower than as a result of a terrorist attack. I don't think they're crazy for wanting to keep it that way. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 13654 12/5/15 6:30 am
|