Tuesday, November 17, 2015

National Security and Refugees: Do What’s Right


Post by Jeremiah Lorrig, Generation Joshua’s Deputy Director

The views expressed in this post are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Generation Joshua or GenJ affiliates.

Please note that due to the serious nature of the topic this post contains images that may be distressing for readers. Discretion advised.


Did you know that in 1939 over 900 Jewish refugees fled from Germany to the United States on a cruise liner to escape Nazi persecution? “We’re going away,” they said to each other. “We don’t have to look over our shoulders anymore.” But as they neared the Florida coast, US authorities refused to allow the ship to dock. After also trying to dock in Cuba and again being refused, the ship sailed back to Europe, pleading with various countries to grant refuge to the escapees. In the end, the only nation that would allow them to dock was Belgium. It was not long before Belgium was consumed by the Nazi blitzkrieg. 254 of those who had sought safety in America could not escape a second time, and died in the horror we now call the Holocaust.


A Turkish officer stands over a lifeless toddler
who drowned while fleeing from ISIS.
Photograph: Reuters
Today we are facing a new horror like that of the Nazis. A radical group that brokers no opposition has taken control of a war-torn land, and is now methodically killing Christians and others who refuse to submit to their strict Islamic laws. Just a few months ago, when photos of a drowned two-year-old boy who washed up on a Turkish beach swept through social media, the world was confronted with the plight of these thousands of desperate men, women, and children fleeing for their lives from this group that calls itself the new Islamic State.

In the wake of the horrific attacks in Paris, I am seeing many pundits, activists, and friends posting on social media about their concerns for American security. Many are suggesting that the United States consider closing our borders to refugees fleeing ISIS.

While I understand national security concerns, I am troubled by the idea of completely closing our borders to those fleeing ISIS. ISIS is driving people from their homes, enslaving young women, and literally beheading Christians. Like Hitler in the last century, ISIS is eliminating entire societies and ways of life, driving before them waves of innocents who are desperately trying to keep their families, faith, and culture alive.



As far back as the Pilgrims, America has been a place where people have sought relief from religious and political persecution—a lighthouse guiding those in troubled waters to freedom. And beyond our rich national heritage, Christians have the words of the Old Testament and New Testament to inform how we approach those in need.

The Mosaic Law commanded God’s people to show compassion and love to “aliens and strangers” in the land. Jesus rhetorically asked his followers to consider who their “neighbor” actually is. He drove home his message by telling a story with a hero who comes from a different culture and even a different religion—a Samaritan. Jesus showed his disciples that the outcasts are our neighbors, and God clearly commands us to help neighbors who are in need.

Having said this, I also believe the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens.

So how do we reconcile this apparent dilemma?

Let’s begin by looking at some facts.

A broader picture

The home-grown terrorist problem

First, based on what I have seen so far, those who conducted the attacks in Paris can be divided into two groups: those who were “home-grown” and those who came in as “refugees.” Only one of the Paris terrorists appears to have been a refugee (and, according to one report, his passport may have been planted to mislead investigators). So, is the refugee impostor really the problem? Not likely. If he had been stopped at the border, it would have made little difference. The rest of his co-conspirators were already in the country.

Turning away refugees won’t stop the terrorists

Islamic State Flag
Second, would turning away all refugees escaping from ISIS stop determined terrorists? The FBI has warned that ISIS has active members in all 50 states. Six months ago ISIS claimed to have strike teams lined up in 15 states. Yesterday, ISIS purportedly released a video claiming that they are going to attack Washington, D.C. Do they need “refugees” to carry in detailed plans from overseas masterminds? Not in the age of the internet. Do they need “refugees” to bring in weapons? Not in a country with the highest gun ownership per capita in the world. The people who would be most affected by a refugee shutdown would be those fleeing from the Islamic State’s reign of terror.


What are ISIS supporters actually doing?

Third, ISIS recruits are going to Syria far more than they are coming to the west. In the last year, America’s allies have been blocking ISIS—related travel—but not in the way you might expect. The restrictions that work are policies like Australia’s travel restriction to prevent their citizens from traveling to the Middle East to join ISIS. The newly established caliphate (that’s what ISIS claims to be) is drawing followers from around the world. They want to go to Iraq and Syria to be a part of a new Islamic future. Of course, we and our allies don’t want them to go. If they go, they will lend more power to ISIS, execute more Christians, destroy more cultural landmarks, and oppress more people—creating more refugees.



Refugees are trying to get away from ISIS


Refugees from ISIS
Fourth, this fact seems obvious to me, and it is implied in the above discussion, but we all need to be clear on one thing: The Syrian refugees that we are all talking about are those trying to escape from ISIS. Below I will talk about the importance of verifying this, but regardless of possible terrorist plants, etc., the people we are talking about are the victims of ISIS. We must understand that these victims are the refugees being discussed when someone says keep them all out.

Finding a better way

So, what are reasonable alternative policies that are both wise and avoid turning away those in need?

First, we need to establish good policy that both lines up with our principles and reasonably protects our people. Here are two points to keep in mind:
  1. We need to reject the liberal idea that a policy is a failure if something slips through. Liberals often say that a new policy would be “worth it” if it “saves just one life.” That totally depends on the policy. Banning the use of water in swimming pools would probably stop people from drowning in swimming pools, but it would be silly. Not only would it be an unacceptable loss of freedom, but the unintended consequences could include more drownings in lakes and ponds due to fewer people being taught to swim because they don’t have swimming pools. All this to say: stopping all refugees from Syria, for example, might prevent some terrorists from entering the country, but that alone doesn’t make it either just or worth the price.
  2. We need to avoid falling into the trap of letting ISIS dictate our policies. ISIS wants to expand their power and destroy the morale of those who oppose them. This is why they commit gruesome terrorist attacks against civilians. While they likely don’t need to send false “refugees” into the United States, they likely will do so in an attempt to increase national distrust of the real refugees and force us to focus our resources in areas that have lower return. If we refuse to accept those fleeing from ISIS, then the Islamic State gains in two ways. 1) They gain from a PR perspective by proving that the “Crusaders” don’t care about people, and 2) they increase their control over people who no longer have a place to escape from the new caliphate.

The Ellis Island model 

Enough about what we shouldn’t do—what should we do?

Syrian refugees at Budapest Keleti railway station, 4 September 2015
Before I give my opinion, I want to highlight that I am not claiming this is the only reasonable solution. Nor do I claim that these ideas don’t have challenges or that they are born out of tremendous research. I do, however, believe them to be at least as strong as the claims that we should keep all Syrian refugees out of the country.

Personally, I look back to the time when my great-grandfather entered the United States in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. Between 1892 and 1954, millions of people, including refugees from Europe and the Middle East, received their first taste of freedom on the shores of Ellis Island.

On that small spit of land, immigrants would wait in line, be investigated to see if they were a threat to the United States, and be cross-examined to make sure that we knew what they were here for and what they planned to do. Only 2% were denied.


Ellis Island at the turn of the century
I believe that we should establish refugee hubs (like Ellis Island) that keep the process simple while carefully screening those wishing to enter our country. These locations should collect information through an application, interviews, and a simple background research process, submit it to relevant national security agencies for screening, and give refugees basic guidance on possible next steps and basic tools for assimilating into American life. Refugees should present their case showing that they would face serious harm if they returned to their home country (this is my understanding of the current standard required by the law). This process should be completed within a specified time frame, with definite extensions for those whose background checks raise possible red flags. However, if there is no compelling reason to reject the applicant, then their application should be accepted.

Of course, this type of system (or any system) would rely on a diligent executive in the White House. I understand many people’s serious concerns that refugees escaping from Syria are not being carefully examined—to make sure, for instance, that they are not actually from India with a forged Syrian passport and gaming the system. Even more concerning would be those with known terrorist ties who are trying to take advantage of refugee status for evil purposes. These issues will come up no matter what the laws are, and that is why elections matter so much. We need to be educated citizens and talk about these issues with our friends and neighbors to ensure that wise and good leaders are elected to high office.

A vigilant refuge 

I believe an approach like this (or at least upholding these same principles) would uphold the Christian values of protecting the weak and vulnerable, as well as the traditional American values of being a place of refuge for those who face serious persecution. It would also establish a system that vigilantly protects Americans by screening for those with ISIS connections, for example, and serve as a deterrent for those who would seek to do us harm.

Regardless of what the final system looks like, I think that it will be a failure if it does not strive to honor both mandates.

ISIS is evil. But as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” This doesn’t mean that we don’t use armies and weapons. But it does mean that while we are fighting, we fight for love. We follow the light even as it leads us into dark places. We embrace our duty to love the stranger who is our neighbor because what John Quincy Adams said is true: “The duty is ours; the results are God’s.”




40 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely wonderful, Jeremiah, thank you so much for taking the time to share!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome! Thanks for reading it. :-)

      Delete
  3. This is very good! Thank you so much for you thoughts!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words. I am glad you like it.

      Delete
  4. There are a lot of good Biblical and human rights arguments not only to let refugees in, but anyone who wants to come. And I certainly am glad my great-grandparents had a place to go when they were fleeing the Russian pogroms of the early 1900's. But reasoning must be done in context. The Jews were not attacking the West and Western culture with terrorism (nor were the Irish, etc.). With the general trend toward free nations being welfare states and using education to attack the Judeo-Christian culture, open borders would destroy any nation (and therefore its ability to help) due to the loss of security in TODAY's threat environment, bankruptcy, and eventually tyranny as Western culture is erased.

    While Jeremiah's points are good in a well-defined box, in the context of the real world, I think they exacerbate current problems. And the idea of "screening for ISIS" is just not realistic. All we have is the word of the people coming in--there is no database to look them up in, even if we knew who they really were. You could also make the case that there are millions--maybe billions--of people that are suffering similar conditions. Again, the appeal to compassion sounds great in a little box.

    Some thoughts about getting to answers on this VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. Probably not going to be solved on a blog or FB. Instead of coming up with technology to violate the rights of Americans, perhaps we should secure the border and have monitoring of non-citizens. And stop the welfare handouts (including to Americans, who create demand for more people to come looking for work because the Americans are better off on govt assistance than doing the "jobs Americans won't do(TM)." And while we are at it, Let's end the govt monopoly on education that has given us a suicidal moral-equivalent view of all cultures. THEN we can let true freedom ring, and welcome the tired, poor, and persecuted, while not destroying our own country and our ability to help others.

    I know, none of that is going to happen any time soon, and the refugees need help now. Let's help them THERE. They are traveling past countries much closer to their own culture. Let's look at the UN, our international aid funds, and private fund raising to come up with creative ideas to help everyone, not just those in a position to get to Europe. Yes, that would all take real leadership that doesn't hate the values of the West and American exceptionalism.

    I know, we don't have that leadership. And that is why I would be very, very careful about any position that agrees with our current leadership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you would feel better about the process if you had a more detailed understanding of how a refugee qualifies for immigration and what kind of assistance they receive once they get here. I found this link to be very informative:

      http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/18/9756590/refugee-process-us

      Delete
    2. Agree. Well said. "Let's help them THERE"

      Delete
    3. I wish it were that easy! Sadly, we can't help them THERE. They left for a reason. That would be like Americans telling the Jews during WW2, "Stay there--we'll send you some money for humanitarian aid and maybe some arms too."

      There is no living in Syria right now. And if you look at the context of what caused the refugees to flee in the first place, there are no easy solutions. That country is not settling down again anytime soon. Offering the noncombatives a place to live in the meantime (or permanently resettle) is the best we can do for them. Unfortunately, these folks are going to be dealing with the trauma of leaving and losing loved ones in the process for the rest of their lives. This is really the least we can do as Americans. As Christians, we should be welcoming and ministering to them.

      Delete
    4. While this sounds good, it isn't that way in reality. Almost 80% of the refugees are young men, quite capable of being trained to be terrorists AFTER they get in.
      In fact this high percentage denotes the prabability that many are planted by terrorists to be trained later.
       And don't say that they could never be trained afterwards, because we have located terrorist training camps IN THE US (via the sound of automatic arms firing, video footage, and eye witness accounts)
      The only way to solve this problem safely is the gospel, and by that I mean in there own country. Now of course we can't do this because of the war, so we MUST invade Syria, and destroy ISIS. That would open the way for missionaries. However we can't war because we're terribly in debt (that being Obama's doing)
      So we need to elect a experienced businessman  (Donald Trump) so he can get us out of this debt pit, and pave the way for missionaries by war.

      Now please, I don't mean any harm to Jerimia or any of my other brothers and sisters in Christ, so don't take it that way.

      Delete
    5. While there are terrorists undoubtedly mingling with the real refugees, less than 2% of the refugees coming in through the US resettlement program are young males unattached the families. The bulk of the refugees that the US admits are woman and young children. As stated by a commenter earlier, its important to understand how the US refugee resettlement works. It's not as though we let anyone in willy-nilly.

      Check out more stats about refugees coming to the US (which is different than global refugees): World Relief FAQ http://refugeecrisis.worldrelief.org/

      Delete
    6. Please, everyone needs to stop saying that 80% of the refugees are young men. I don't know where this number came from but it is false. Over half of the refugees are children. 40% are under age 12. Only 22% are men age 18-59. These are U.N. stats. I think someone dreamed up the 80% stat to scare people and other people just ran with it.
      http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

      Show me a credible source with the 80% number if you don't believe me.

      Delete
    7. Thank you for your stats Caroline, Abigail's link didn't have any. The stats say that 22% are 18-59, but you have to note that above the stats it says "The Regional demographic breakdown below is based on available data from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon", not of America. So I still need some stats for the ones coming into America and Europe. As of yet I haven't listed any sources, but that is because the magazine I saw it in is lost is lost. I will try to find it on the internet. Still seems like the the best way to deal with the problem is to solve it, not put it off.

      Delete
    8. And Abigail, I must say, WHO CARES if they are attached to families. Families are the way God created it, that doesn't mean they make you good all of the sudden! After the Fall the things God created were and are continually misused.
      You can build a wonderfuly powerful pagan nation with good family structure, (Russia, they outlawed homosexuality) but that doesn't make you good. Part of the reason America is falling apart is because of our horrible family structure. But that's all off the point.
      Just because you belong in a pagan family, doesn't mean you can't be a pagan terrorist. In fact the bad influence could possibly HELP YOU become a terrorist.
      And, it is untrue that the majority are woman and children. Its false, read the stats.

      Delete
  5. As long as the current president is in office, I do not trust in the US Govt's ability to properly review and provide any integrity to our immigration policy; he has singlehandedly destroyed any semblance of immigration controls in this country. So unfortunately for the Syrian refugees, I believe that keeping them out is the most prudent thing to do at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amen! Thank you so much for this, Jeremiah! I already was thinking much of this, but you put it into words in such a nice, clear, reasonable manner. May we as a country do what is right and not let fear negate compassion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words. I hope the article encouraged you to think about the topic combining national security and compassion for those in need.

      Thanks again!

      Delete
  7. I'd be more than happy to bring Christians into the US fleeing persecution as several areas in the world are approaching genocide. Unfortunately, the US under the current administration turns away Christians in favor of muslims--less than 3% of those granted asylum are Christian. Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology based on behaving as much as they can like their 'perfect muslim' Mohammed -- a pedophile, conniver, thief, --and many more uncomplimentary terms. Islam if followed as presented in the koran (and hadiths and sunnas) is perfectly shown by ISIS. Christians have a responsibility to their own families. Allowing more and more muslims into the US is not Christianity, it's suicide--as shown by the number of countries around the world that are 100% muslim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would strongly encourage you to engage in more extensive contemplation on the issue before espousing this opinion. While it's garnered attention in recent weeks (mainly from Jeb Bush's desperate attempts to resuscitate his poll numbers) it remains a remarkably anti-Biblical, unconstitutional, unethical, and impractical idea. It was created by a politician to score political points, not by a thinking person attempting to address the real-world crisis we have before us.

      First, why is it anti-Biblical? The Bible clearly tells us that we should show compassion to all peoples, from all nations and all religious persuasions. If we only show love to Christians, we are "no better than the Gentiles." Please don't take this stance as advocacy for open borders or some similarly barmy policy...as the author of this thoughtful post (and many other commenters in this section) pointed out, we must exercise a careful mix of caution and compassion. But admitting only Christian refugees to this country while turning away Muslims would only confirm ISIS's propaganda about us. America, they say, is a "Crusader Nation." Let's prove them wrong.

      Second, why is it unconstitutional? I understand that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only has legal application to residents of the United States, but surely we can at least appeal to their expressed values for reference in this situation--even a cursory examination of the Bill of Rights reveals that America offers equality of expression and practice to people of all religious and philosophical persuasions. The Framers of the Bill of Rights would roll over in their graves to see this blatantly xenophobic policy espoused by serious candidates for the presidency.

      Third, why is it unethical? The first rule of ethics, whether Christian or secular, is to "First, do no harm." By turning away the predominantly Muslim refugee population that stands at our doorstep, impoverished and in desperate need of aid, we would clearly be the authors of a humanitarian crisis. The harm we would do would far outweigh the far-fetched threats which we claimed to avoid.

      Fourth and finally, this policy is irreparably impractical. No one has yet to determine any sensible Shibboleth to discover whether somebody is a Christian or not. We couldn't give the refugees an advanced test on doctrine...even most American Christians couldn't tell you what hermeneutics is. We couldn't ask them to describe their conversion experience...the story could easily be faked, not to mention the fact that some denominations deny even the existence of a conversion experience. We couldn't call up their pastor for reference, as he's most likely already dead, or in hiding, or unreachable, or completely nonexistent because some denominations don't have a defined head of the church.

      Naturally, I wholeheartedly support the admission and integration of Christian refugees, just as I support the admission and integration of any legitimate refugee from anywhere in the world. If it is true that our country is disadvantaging Christians in the refugee acceptance process) then we should certainly rectify that situation immediately. But closing our borders to all but Christians simply will not work, nor is it desirable.

      We must be wise in our treatment of refugees. As Christians, we must be especially wise in our treatment of the rest of the world, as we not only represent the policies and values of the American government, but also the spirit of Christ. To deny Muslims refuge in our country, after they pass all reasonable tests for potential extremism, is not within the values of the American people, nor within the values of the Christian religion. We are called to take the high road and the difficult road--not the one dictated by fear and rhetoric.

      Delete
  8. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has referred about 16,000 Syrians for resettlement in the United States, but only 1,500 have arrived so far, Larry Yungk, a UNHCR senior resettlement officer in Washington, D.C., told the Chicago Tribune for its profile on how resettlement works and how the ban would affect Illinois. Politico reports that only 2 percent of Syrian resettled so far are "military-aged males unattached to families."

    It’s understandable that people are afraid after what happened in France, Soerens said. But the refugees from Syria—or anywhere else—that enter the United States have been vetted by multiple agencies for a minimum of 18 months, he said.

    “The US has been settling refugees since the 1970s and admitted more than 3 million,” he said. “No one from that program has attacked anyone.” Those admitted to the US are victims, not perpetrators, he said. And the largest religious group that’s admitted? Christians.

    Read More at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/november-web-only/christians-debate-state-bans-syrian-refugees-paris-attacks.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um... once again it DOESN'T MATTER if they are attached to families, they will still be terrorists. Please stop saying that.

      Delete
    2. People with families have something to lose.

      Don't assume you know so much about these people. Just asserting that they're terrorists doesn't actually mean that they are.

      Delete
  9. For profiles on refugees who have made it to the US and how the system actually works (which includes a system very close to what Jeremiah outlined in his thoughtful article) check out World Relief. They are an evangelical group working with refugees and provide excellent, sensible information about the refugee situation. https://worldrelief.org/

    I have a toddler. And all I can think when I see that picture is that could have been me. I could have been that grieving mother who lost her baby while trying to save him.

    I can only hope that if we ever find ourselves in this situation that we are offered more compassion that what we, as a country of privilege and power, are offering those who are currently weak and destitute--simply because we are afraid.

    If we respond out of fear, then evil has already won, people. Perfect love casts out fear.

    ReplyDelete
  10. this video was eye-opening for me. I'm not sure this type of people can be reasoned with...muslims taking over, in large #s...if nothing else, give them some time & their birth rate will exceed nationals (of any nation) http://buzzpo.com/leaked-watch-the-terrifying-video-of-muslim-refugees-isis-doesnt-want-you-to-see/?utm_content=buffer7c535&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” – Matthew 5:43-44

      Delete
  11. This is by far the best thing I have ever seen on the issue of immigration. https://www.facebook.com/john.pickering.127/videos/10153055728726682/

    ReplyDelete
  12. While this sounds good, it isn't that way in reality. Almost 80% of the refugees are young men, quite capable of being trained to be terrorists AFTER they get in.
    In fact this high percentage denotes the prabability that many are planted by terrorists to be trained later.
     And don't say that they could never be trained afterwards, because we have located terrorist training camps IN THE US (via the sound of automatic arms firing, video footage, and eye witness accounts)
    The only way to solve this problem safely is the gospel, and by that I mean in there own country. Now of course we can't do this because of the war, so we MUST invade Syria, and destroy ISIS. That would open the way for missionaries. However we can't war because we're terribly in debt (that being Obama's doing)
    So we need to elect a experienced businessman  (Donald Trump) so he can get us out of this debt pit, and pave the way for missionaries by war.

    Now please, I don't mean any harm to Jerimia or any of my other brothers and sisters in Christ, so don't take it that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Below is the most interesting article I've read on the topic. It has made me reconsider some of the assumptions that I had on the issue.

      Take a minute and read it. Or at least skim the 8 points (they are in bold).

      http://bearingdrift.com/2015/11/18/myths-vs-facts-in-the-syrian-refugee-issue/

      Delete
    3. Please cite a credible source for your claim that 80% are men.

      According to the U.N., more than half are children. 40% are children under age 12. Only 22% are men age 18-59, and most of those men are part of a family.

      http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

      Delete
  13. As much as I think it is important to help these people there are certain realities that need to be faced, while I believe that nearly all of these refugees are indeed simply looking for refuge there is also a great likelihood that a handful of them are indeed terrorists. As we saw in Paris even just a small group of these people can slaughter hundreds of people, our main duty is to the citizens of America first, refugees second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't disagree that our government's main duty is to protect it's people. However, I think we can walk and chew gum.

      Delete
  14. Thanks for standing up for the soul of our nation Jeremiah. We give away a huge part of what makes America so great if we sell our birthright of being a refuge of liberty and protection for a bowl of false security. I have been very disapointed in the general GOP response to the crisis. Are we a reactionary party or a party of historically based vision? I'm not so sure any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trent, I think the heart of the party is still based in principle, but like the humans we are, we get distracted from time to time and our judgement is clouded. I, however, think that this kind of slip is a fluck and that the GOP still has its roots in the understanding of humanity endowed by our creator with personhood, rights, and the image of God.

      Delete
    2. I agree that the GOP still is rooted in solid principles, but there has been a definite bad streak in regards to immigration in general recently. I think core party leadership is trying to guide the GOP to a reasonable position on immigration, but this tide of reactionary populism is making it hard for them to actually govern. If we keep up our insistance on insulting immigrants (and African-Americans for that matter, with our lack of a good, unified response to the racial tensions) how do we expect people to think we care about serving them? I guess though that I shouldn't be blaming just the Republican party, it is deeper than that. We need to let the heart of Christ become our heart and then we can learn what it means to value the meek and poor. Definitely will keep praying for a revival of that heart in me and this nation.

      Delete
    3. The issue is deep and troubling to me too. But you are right, there is hope here.

      Delete
  15. I would much rather see nations that share the same cultural background as the refugees step in to harbor these unfortunate people. Nations such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt would be prime candidates for this role. I don't oppose the United States and other Western nations assisting these refugees, but they should not be the sole participants in this ordeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq seem to be the main leaders each receiving 100x's more refugees than we ever will.

      Delete
    2. I must have been misinformed on the crisis. I will definitely have to do some more research on the situation.

      Delete
  16. You should be pleased with the current system then. Millions of refugees have gone to Middle Eastern countries. Millions have gone to Europe. We're only talking to taking in ten thousand, barely a drop in the bucket. And we only take them after they've been referred by the UN, which only happens after they've been registered in a refugee camp in either the Middle East or Europe, so we're only getting the overflow.

    ReplyDelete