From: Kathleen Smith
Columbus
A unifying mission: The U.S. needs to help as many victims of war and persecution as it can while keeping an acceptable level of safety within its borders, maintaining a reasonably stable economy and remaining true to the Constitution.
How do we balance our desire to help and even save the victims in these countries, with the dangers and difficulties, both short term and long term, of importing a downtrodden people from countries that hate the U.S.?
There is an inherent danger to welcoming immigrants from countries that hate the U.S. The risk involved is complex to evaluate because it comes not only from an occasional violent jihadist, but from another subset of potential immigrants who are “Sharia supremacists.” Although Sharia law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, it is likely not the goal of most immigrants either. This is an ideology that doesn’t value our freedoms and would see our women subjugated, our gay citizens stoned and everyone converted to Islam. This is all some immigrants have ever known.
The balance is going to be tricky. We need a plan that will:
1. Prioritize those in most danger of persecution first, then work in an orderly fashion down the line.
2. Improve our chances of catching those intending to kill us or violate our Constitution, but not unnecessarily delay the processing and welcoming of peace-seeking immigrants.
3. Successfully resettle, then monitor those we have admitted.
4. Help those left behind, who will have to shelter in place.
We, as Americans, should be able to have rational discussions on this topic and welcome peace-seeking refugees. One side’s worry and concern over the plight of refugees shouldn’t be dismissed, but neither should the other side’s rational concerns about safety and the American way of life be delegitimized by name-calling.
Recently, people have tried to stake a claim to a moral high ground. They imply that citizens who would even consider a temporary pause in immigration (from countries that hate us and where “Sharia supremacy” runs rampant) are racist, xenophobic or lacking religious faith. They are quick to brag about their own tolerance, while dismissing concerns over importing some very intolerant people.
There are letters, commercials, sermons and protests over a temporary pause. Where was the outrage over the pause (likely appropriate) in 2011? Where is the outrage over the reversal in the way Cuban refugees are treated? (Really, only Florida was outraged.) Where is the celebration of the nomination of a pro-life supporter to the Supreme Court? Where are the faithful advocating for Christians who, along with Yazidis, as minority religions, are at the highest risk of persecution in Middle Eastern countries, but have been last in line?
To speak from a moral high ground, one must be consistent, and the protest or praise shouldn’t be dependent on politics. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case, as I have pointed out above. So, to those looking down on others: Be careful; your pseudo moral high ground is crumbling, and your hypocrisy is showing.
