The morality of allowing Syrian refugees into the USA

[b_ulmen]

Like Obama has said, to refuse them due to Islamophobia is to show fear. I personally don’t mind them coming in, as long as there are strict background checks. I love all people and I will be more than happy to help them.

What do you mean by this? What records are being checked exactly? “background checks” is an empty platitude.

 

[St_Francis]

This is the contemporary ethical question of hiding Jews in one’s attic; risking personal violence by letting someone in to save them.

I would disagree for two reasons: the first is the obligation the decider has to protect those under his authority, and the second is weighing the options, which I am not sure has been done in the case of the Syrian refugees.

A third aspect might also be considered, which is the personal aspect of hiding Jews in one’s own attic, and the impersonal aspect of allowing or requiring governmental bureaucracy to turn its wheels in this direction.

 

[b_ulmen]

I think we should let them come, but do background checks as much as possible.

And then what? they dont have jobs, they likely are not coming with ‘start-up cash’, reasonably sure English is a distant second language.

We don’t do a decent job of taking care of our homegrown homeless/unemployed. Have we no obligation for compassion to our own first? there is no easy solution to this, but I would temper any macro-level inclination for compassion with the hard reality that there’s a whole continent and a plethora of “1st” world countries - some with strong Muslim communities - before we should get involved.

“let them come” sounds good, but is too often uttered without fully understanding what that means (i.e. the results/impact). Let us take down the defacto DMZ along our southern border and let the persecuted in…with the proper background check of course.

 

[clem456]

We have a moral obligation to help those in need.
I loved George Will’s comment a few weeks ago:
“We have a moral obligation to help these people.”
Simple.
We are also called to the virtue of prudence. We exercise prudential judgment.

It’s a paradox. On the one hand:
This is not that hard folks, we help those in need

And on the other hand
This is very hard to practice with wisdom and prudence

It does seem to me that many people want to avoid this obligation just because it fearful and difficult to fulfill in a prudent way.
We should do the hard work and help them. Love is risky, as evidenced by our Savior’s passion.

Prudence and compassion is not either/or it’s both/and.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What do you mean by this? What records are being checked exactly? “background checks” is an empty platitude.

I’m not at all afraid here in the US, but I have to agree with you: there are no records to be checked, or at least very few. I just think they would be happier in their own homeland were it made somewhat safer for them. I’ve been to the Middle East, and I know I would not like to have to make a new life there and leave behind all here in the US, culture, etc.

 

[JohnnyK]

I’m curious to what your opinions are on this as of right now. On one hand, we have reason to believe that any of these Syrians could cause a terrorist attack, while on the other… they are refugees.

How do you feel about this?

I am torn, as I believe we should help those in need, but we also have to protect our country and its citizens. perhaps something can be done in the mid east, set up and protect a safe zone of some sort?

 

[Jeanne_S]

I am torn, as I believe we should help those in need, but we also have to protect our country and its citizens. perhaps something can be done in the mid east, set up and protect a safe zone of some sort?

Yes,I have heard this option bring discussed,it seems the most prudent for all concerned.

 

[JohnnyK]

Well, on the one had, it’s only right and moral to help those in need. Innocent families, with small children, who desperately need help are fleeing Syria. We don’t want to say “no” to them. However, these are Islamic people, and young Islamic people -even some non-Muslims _ are the ones being radicalized, within weeks. We don’t want to put the children of this country in danger, either. So it’s a dilemma. Obama says all refugees will be thoroughly vetted, but how to you vet a refugee from Syria? If I remember correctly, some of those responsible for the bombings in Paris were living in either France or Belgium legally.

It’s a conundrum. We want to be merciful to them, yet at the same time, we owe our own children mercy and safety.

Exactly how I feel.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly how I feel.

Some people might say I’ve been going back and forth, and that’s true because I don’t know the best or most moral thing to do in this case. The post of mine you quoted is exactly how I feel. I just don’t know the best thing to do.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

What’s the worst that could happen? If Paris is any guide, a lone wolf operative or two could get their hands on a firearm, pop off, and kill a bunch of people in a public place.

The very idea is terrifying, except for the fact that it literally happens every other week in America. If people can be so blase about the prospect of homegrown mass murder, then I fail to see why they should be afraid of Syrians getting in on the action.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Statistics show that you are more likely to be killed by a police officer in this nation than a terrorist. You also are more likely to be killed by an extreme right wing White terrorist than an Muslim one as well.

Well my psychology teacher was the one who first brought it up today. I looked for source
time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0
washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/youre-55-times-likely-killed-police-officer-terrorist.html

The last link talks more that just police deaths.

Except that both the articles simply take events after 9/11 as an arbitrary starting point. Why has 9/11 been excluded from the determination that “we are more likely?” Factor in 9/11 and the case is just the opposite because the numbers of terrorist deaths since are less than a hundred and the 9/11 death toll was in the tens of thousands.

This is a case of deliberately manipulating variables to present a false narrative.

If you want to make a case, then take ALL terrorist related deaths in modern history and see what can legitimately be said about the likelihood of being killed by terrorists of certain stripes rather than to make us all “feel better” about certain brands of terror.

Psychology major, then?

To put things into perspective…

A total of 32,658 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2014 - an 80% increase on the previous year, according to the Global Terrorism Index.

Of the 10 countries most affected by terrorism last year, seven are majority Muslim, while Nigeria has a roughly even Muslim-Christian split.

In addition, the IEP said the victims of terrorism are also in the countries with the worst problems relating to internal and external displacement.

It reaffirms European Commission president chief Jean-Claude Juncker’s statement that those who carried out the Paris shootings are the very people refugees are fleeing from.

And it puts into perspective demands for normal Muslims to publically reject terrorists who generally victimise them more than anyone else.
independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-top-10-countries-which-suffer-the-most-from-terrorism-most-of-which-are-muslim-a6738121.html

What is interesting in the article is that it focuses entirely on the fact that Muslims make up the overwhelming number of victims because the acts of terrorism is – at this time – constrained to Muslim majority or near majority countries (8/10). That would mean acts of terrorism are overwhelmingly perpetrated by Muslims, a fact that the article completely glosses over along with WHY that might be the case.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s statement needs to be taken with a huge block of salt because it doesn’t truly consider who those “refugees” purportedly fleeing from the violence really are. It just assumes that only the victims would want to flee rather than considering the perpetrators themselves would want to use the situation to spread terrorism, which is clearly the case from the Paris attacks and from ISIS communications.

I have yet to see a compelling analysis of why Muslim majority countries are so likely to be the homes of terrorism and terrorist acts. Care to take that on as part of your psychology training?

 

[tweedlealice]

Hi,
We are not afraid of the widow or the orphan, as our President stated. Terrorist have come in the refugees. Did you see how many young men came as refugees. God forbid say we would like more Christians. ISIS has been committing genocide on them. Bring more terrorists over. They need vetting in Europe and then, send them. Then, take the young men train them to be soldiers and send them back to fight for their country.
We have no money to support a massive refugee program. China and Russia, our closest friends, hold our 19 trillion debt.
MAY God shine His continence upon them and give them peace. MAY Jehovah Jirah, our provider send them their needs.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Usagi]

I agree that there are real security concerns that must be taken into account, and that settling refugees nearer to their homes might even be preferable to them. But I think we do have an obligation to help however we can, and it that includes physically taking people in, then that’s what we do.

Many people here seem especially concerned about these specific refugees, because they are Muslim or Middle Eastern or however you want to classify them. That is the worrisome xenophobia that others have talked about. Yes, there could be a few people with bad intentions among the refugees. But their being Muslim or Syrian doesn’t make them inherently more dangerous than anyone else. White Christian dudes commit mass shootings periodically, and many of us (myself included) insist that it is wrong to cast suspicion on everyone who is white or male or Christian, even if the particular guy did his violence out of racism or sexism or twisted religion. We even insist (again, including myself) that the vast majority of people can be trusted to own and carry weapons without danger of their harming anyone. Surely these refugees deserve at least that much benefit of the doubt.

People visit this country all the time. As some of you have noted, people already living here can be influenced by radical propaganda online. If ISIS or another group wants to get someone into the US, they can do that whether or not we take in these refugees. So we should take in the people in need, even at the risk that some of them mean harm. Leaving many to suffer because some might be bad – mostly based on their background and religion rather than any specific evidence – is a poor trade for followers of Jesus to make.

Usagi

 

[clem456]

We can’t build a wall around the country to avoid the perils of the world. It will never work. Those who need or want to climb over will find a way. We have a moral obligation. It is risky.

And another poster made a good point. We are killing each other far faster than anyone else is killing us. We are dying from within, from all the evil we can stomach.
How are we going to keep that out?

If we do not help these people and the many others who need help, we will die from our own selfishness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Many people here seem especially concerned about these specific refugees, because they are Muslim or Middle Eastern or however you want to classify them. That is the worrisome xenophobia that others have talked about. Yes, there could be a few people with bad intentions among the refugees. But their being Muslim or Syrian doesn’t make them inherently more dangerous than anyone else.

Well, this is the part of the narrative that hasn’t properly been assessed. What does the word “inherently” refer to? And what precisely is “inherent” in the Muslim belief system that makes it the predominant source for the commission of terrorist acts?

You could call it xenophobia on the part of anyone who asks the question, but that doesn’t answer the question, it merely dismisses it.

If you go to the terrorism.com database and search on the term “Islam” you get 83 pages of terrorist acts, the large majority being acts committed by – as opposed to suffered by – Muslim groups. If you search on the term “Christian,” you get 10 pages of acts for the most part suffered by Christian groups at the hands of others, mostly Muslim.

Here is the link…
terrorism.com/terrorism/index.html%3E

Sure, xenophobia is a real possibility, but that doesn’t explain the discrepancy between the two belief systems or why Islam has such a tendency to produce the terrorism that it does. At some point just dismissing the issue behind words like xenophobia isn’t really getting at the crux of the matter, it just avoids it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We can’t build a wall around the country to avoid the perils of the world. It will never work. Those who need or want to climb over will find a way. We have a moral obligation. It is risky.

And another poster made a good point. We are killing each other far faster than anyone else is killing us. We are dying from within, from all the evil we can stomach.
How are we going to keep that out?

If we do not help these people and the many others who need help, we will die from our own selfishness.

There is a difference between “selfishness” and “prudence.”

We are commanded to love our neighbor ‘as our self,’ which presumes we properly love our ‘self’ before we can appropriately love our neighbor.

There is a middle road to be forged here and the question – as in every vexing moral problem – is, Where should that road lead in the end?

The fact that we are “dying from within,” seems to indicate that we haven’t got our own house in order yet, so I doubt inviting ‘others’ into our house will magically sort out the problems that we do have. If our house was morally and spiritually solid, then it might be sufficiently strong and capable of withstanding a few minor disruptions, but this is a house teetering on the brink of moral collapse which doesn’t trust (in fact, has come to hate) its own capacity to achieve its own destiny or to self-possess its own identity.

 

[clem456]

There is a difference between “selfishness” and “prudence.”

We are commanded to love our neighbor ‘as our self,’ which presumes we properly love our ‘self’ before we can appropriately love our neighbor.

There is a middle road to be forged here and the question – as in every vexing moral problem – is, Where should that road lead in the end?

Prudence without compassion is selfishness, not prudence.
Compassion without Godly prudence is not compassion.

Although a case could be made that compassion throws prudence aside, at least prudence that is not linked to it’s source. Maybe wisdom is the better word.

 

[Peter_Plato]

… the 9/11 death toll was in the tens of thousands.

This is a factual error on my part. The actual death toll was about 3000.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Prudence without compassion is selfishness, not prudence.
Compassion without Godly prudence is not compassion.

Although a case could be made that compassion throws prudence aside, at least prudence that is not linked to it’s source. Maybe wisdom is the better word.

Compassion doesn’t throw ALL prudence aside. Jesus knew the end for which he was laying down his life. It wasn’t just a case of being killed for the sake of “proving” that he loves human beings by showing his willingness to die. That way of depicting what he did is an impoverished rendition of what he actually accomplished and why.

 

[clem456]

Compassion doesn’t throw ALL prudence aside. Jesus knew the end for which he was laying down his life. It wasn’t just a case of being killed for the sake of “proving” that he loves human beings by showing his willingness to die. That way of depicting what he did is an impoverished rendition of what he actually accomplished and why.

And that is really my point, that virtues work together in the service of love.

It is not one or the other.