“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.”
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Given the events in Paris, Mali, Turkey and Brussels, one would have to be crazy not to have some level of concern about the safety of our own country, our own cities, our own families. Yet those who have expressed such a concern are termed paranoid by our own President, afraid of widows and orphans, a fear based on hysteria. So apparently expressing anything short of mindless trust in a government that seldom has proven itself trustworthy is indicative of some sort of mental disorder, any level of rational sanity deemed only to show how insane we actually are.
There is such a thing as xenophobia, and possibly more than any other country our American values represent a rejection of such irrational fears. It is however disturbing to see the ease with which progressive commentators, including the President, attach that type of label to people who in the face of the horrific headlines express a concern, and question the balance between safety and charity. It fits the template so often used of villainizing the motives of those who hold an opinion even slightly at variance; criticisms of the President are attributed to “racism”, advocating a pro-life position becomes part of a “war on women”, religious differences regarding same sex marriage indicates “homophobia”, opposing the affordable care act meant you “want people to die”, believing in 2nd amendment rights means you “love guns more than children”; and now questioning the advisability of bringing thousands of refugees into our country who arguably might be infiltrated by or influenced with an extreme form of jihadism, means you are psychotic, cowardly, and anti-christian.
It is a burden the religious must carry to be at once criticized for holding a higher set of values than the world at large (“holier than thou”), and yet to be ostracized when it is perceived that they are not perfectly living up to the values rejected by their worldly counterparts (“and you call yourself a Christian!”). It is ironic to see how the progressive movement, historically opposed to generalizing Christianity to the American experience, has suddenly found Jesus. If we are indeed not a Christian nation, why then are we being expected to suddenly act as though we are, and that by the very people who demean and belittle our regressive religion?
Our President, who seems to view all things through a political prism, has attempted to attribute opposition to his plan to plunge ahead with his original intent to bring thousands of Syrian refugees to our shores to Republicans’ political posturing. The bipartisan passage of the “pause” legislation in the House belies that contention with the support of 47 Democrats, who doubtfully have any interest in helping Republicans posture. Rather it is expressive of a widely held national concern that we need to take a step back, and make doubly sure that what we are doing is not going to prove to be catastrophic. Like the high pressure salesman who fears the consequences of giving the naive customer time to think, the President has chosen the proven progressive sales strategy of “today only”, “act now”, “tomorrow will be too late”. The administration assures us that the vetting process takes 18 months to two years, so it’s not like people will suddenly be flooding our shores, but that begs the question, where are all these refugees now? If this is a “crisis” that we can afford to take two years to deal with, it would seem that the emergency is not such that we can’t take a few more months to explore alternative solutions.
I am by nature both compassionate and a risk taker. If I lived alone, I would be tempted constantly to take in questionable and needy individuals. If I were the only American I would certainly roll the dice and welcome all. But I don’t live alone, and even if I were confident of the safety of a houseguest, the concerns of those who live with me need to be considered, despite my head of household status. I live in a country with others whose safety should concern me, and whose opinions are as valid as my own. Even in the face of the President and pundits’ mockery and insults for those who worry about terrorism, many are afraid, and many more are simply concerned. It’s not xenophobia, no one is concerned about immigrants and refugees from any other part of the world, these refugees come from a cultural background that has a demonstrated risk factor attached, and it is not unreasonable for people to be concerned. A caring leader would address those concerns, comfort the citizens, and convince them of their safety to gain their confidence. Instead he insults them, basically calling them hateful, sissies, and un-American, afraid of widows and orphans. He ignores the fact that nearly 80% of the refugees are men, and in a world where women are strapping on suicide vests, and children are trained in decapitation, widows can be Stepford wives, and orphans, children of the corn.
IMHO: At this time of the year Americans open their hearts, and more specifically their wallets, to many charities. There is a reason we throw money into that Salvation Army kettle, and not our house keys. It is possible to be compassionate to the less fortunate without being foolish. Few people would consider it un-christian, timid, or bigoted not to bring a homeless person home with them for the holidays; but instead find a more cautious way to make a difference in their lives. Even the good Samaritan did not bring home the wounded stranger, but made accommodation for him at an inn. If you, like the President, with layers of secret service, or myself, with somewhat less security, are courageous enough to run the risk to extend charity to these unfortunate refugees, you still cannot impose your courage on so many others who call this nation home. In reality, most of the willingness to bring the refugees in quickly has more to do with polyannish ideas about central planning than courage, and more to do with political devotion than charity. There are other solutions that would be more charitable, but they might require even more courage, both political and personal; there are alternatives that would honor the concerns of our fellow citizens instead of mocking and insulting them, but they might require even more charity. We are a welcoming country and a welcoming people, but we have borders, and while they are porous, they are not open, and there will always be a need for discretion for whom we allow entrance. It has been said that we lock our doors at night not because we hate the people outside our house, but because we love the people inside. I am saddened by the plight of the widows and orphans that President Obama finds so compelling, but we have widows and orphans here as well, and some of them from the very same terrorists. Is our kindness only for strangers and refugees, and not for those of our own house? It is a good thing to extend our blessings across the world, but not at the expense of the safety, dignity, or peace of mind of our fellow citizens. After all, charity begins at home.
Your entire post is based on the false premise that there is a link between the Paris attacks and the refugee crisis. Every single one of the Paris attackers who has been identified was a EU citizen. The terrorists are already among us. The refugees coming to our shores are fleeing the same violence that we fear at home — they do not pose a safety threat. The only humane response to the refugee crisis is to take in every single individual who manages to make it to our borders alive; there is no alternative. The United States has a special responsibility in this matter, not only because of its wealth as a nation, but also because the devastating foreign policy decisions of the past two administrations have turned the Middle East into a breeding ground for religious extremism and terrorism. Of course, the numbers being discussed by the Obama administration are ridiculous anyway compared to the number of refugees European countries have already accepted in 2015 alone.
Actually, my entire post is based on the premise that people do not deserve to be mocked and accused of being cowards and un-christian for expressing reservations or exploring alternatives when it comes to the safety of their families and loved ones. Your comment is a demonstration of how strong opinions can be intelligently presented without being insulting. While I may not be able to share your unequivocal claim that none of these refugees pose a safety threat, I applaud your ability to make a rational case for your position without descending into character assassination of those who hold a differing point of view. Ultimately, in a democracy the citizens own the nation, and short of constitutional prohibitions majorities will eventually shape policy, for good or for ill. This is why your passionate plea for humanity is a far more productive response than our President’s mocking and demeaning attacks of Republicans, dissenting Democrats, and even his own constituency.