christians play russian roulette with syrian refugees
Quiner’s Diner published an interestingly xenophobic graphic the other day in their post “The Refugee Dilemma“. A picture of a gun loaded with one bullet, and the words “refugee roulette”.
I agree that we are playing an unnecessarily dangerous game when it comes to denying people help. I left a comment which is being held in moderation, and thought it would be nice to release it here in the meantime.
Which refugee dilemma are you referring to? Is it that if you refuse to help anyone, you’re playing Russian roulette in terms of radicalising more people both overseas and within your borders? Or is it the Russian roulette in terms of going against the clear teachings of Jesus? Playing with your eternal soul, so to speak.
Or maybe it’s just the Russian roulette with your human conscience – sitting in your comfortable life in the richest country in the world, refusing to help people in desperate need because you don’t like foreigners (and can’t even hide from yourself that the security red herring would cut both ways and is therefore irrelevant).
I had an interesting exchange with a fellow who said that the idea that we’re not accepting refugees is fear-based is ridiculous. No, we have other, much better reasons for not helping them. Specifically that we have no use for them.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting approach indeed! Although I suspect it’s not the primary concern for most people seeing things like Russian roulette graphics doing the rounds in their social media …
LikeLike
It is important to keep in mind that the US Government is not the church, and should not be expected to conduct its affairs according to the teachings of Jesus. While we have always and will always accept refugees, I do think it is prudent to put some safety measures in place to keep ISIL terrorists out of the group we let in.
LikeLike
OK, Jim, let’s turn away all flights, ships, trains, buses and automobiles carrying foreigners into the U.S. from other countries, and make all travelers go through a 2+ year vetting process like we already do with all refugees (including Syrians) before they can visit the U.S.
LikeLike
“OK, Jim, let’s turn away all flights, ships, trains, buses and automobiles carrying foreigners into the U.S. from other countries…”
I think there is a lot of options in-between the two extremes of letting everybody in or nobody in.
LikeLike
Jim, I hope you see the point.
“The issue of accepting refugees has always been politicized, … The most amount of support for refugees has been when the fact of their suffering at the hands of a foreign government aligns with a narrative we have about that government being our enemy.”
“We have a very long tradition of exaggerating the threat that refugees might pose. Just as we didn’t have a single case of a Jew working for the Nazis who was admitted into the United States, it would be very difficult for a Syrian sleeper agent for ISIS to make it through a two-year process of being vetted and being interviewed and having to explain themselves.”
“Public opinion hasn’t shifted much. More than 60 percent of Americans polled in 1939 opposed resettling 10,000 mostly Jewish refugee children in the U.S. Just over half of Americans believe that the U.S. should accept more Syrian refugees, according to a September poll conducted by Pew.”
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/19/3723872/jewish-refugees/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link, Victoria. This is heartbreaking.😔
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quixie, thank you for taking the time to read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You always post interesting links so I check them out every time and haven’t been disappointed yet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 ❤
LikeLike
Are these safety measurements enough, Jim?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nan, I don’t claim any expertise on this issue and my opinion about what constitutes enough amounts to very little. I would hope that we would err on the side of caution, rather than faith.
LikeLike
I think the whole debate has been created by FEAR — which to non-believers should not be an issue because of what Jesus told his followers.
From the political standpoint — it’s simply ridiculous for congress (mostly Republicans) to deny these people from entering the U.S. (or delaying their entry) when there are such strict screening processes. I mean, c’mon. The U.S. Government is the one that put these processes in place to begin with! Don’t these politicians know their own laws? Of course they do, but it’s more than obvious that public opinion rules … as it does in so many cases.
LikeLike
Thanks for the graphic, Nan. It’s always good to be armed with the facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, thanks for your comment. I think the point here is that the loudest voice coming from the USA regarding how refugees can be helped, is from the camp that claims to be Christian. And it’s mind boggling to the rest of the world that the message you are transmitting is one primarily of fear and negation of any responsibility – either simply in terms of from one human to another, or in terms of being the main power that agitated the situation to such an extent that ISIL could flourish. AND all this in the name of a religion that demands kindness to foreigners, to enemies, to anyone in need. Can you see how odd it is?
LikeLike
Yes, I can see how odd what you described is. I have not noticed the outcry as being a “Christian” thing and I live in the states. It seems to be coming from all sides of the aisle and all viewpoints.
We have official US Government workers stating there is no way to really screen all refuges, (even with the steps that Nan outlined above in her link) you have ISIS stating that they will infiltrate the refuges to get here, combine that with what happened in Paris and you can see why a majority of Americans including the non-religious, non-Christian and religious among us, would be concerned.
There are probably extremes on both sides of this debate, but it seems reasonable to me to slow down the process and make sure that we have every protection in place that we can before we bring more in.
You are right, we have a responsibility to help the true refugee because we created the problem and have only made it worse!
LikeLike
I’ll tell you what I see. I see a terrorist organisation using terror tactics to make people scared, and succeeding. I see the richest country in the world wanting the rest of the world to suck up a humanitarian problem it had a huge hand in creating because the lives of American citizens trump any other human life. Europe is as big a target for ISIL as the USA. Some are closing their doors, but Germany is taking 500,000 a year – they’re not slack in bureaucracy, but they’re managing it. You’ve all sucked up a fear-mongering lie, and it’s a frightening shame because I know you’re the liberal end of American thinking.
If you get a chance, please read this post, and see if it puts security concerns in a more global context:
LikeLike
I think you are right but I would say that people in the USA have become quite concerned. I don’t think people are afraid at this point. Nobody that I know is altering how they live, anymore than we already have. Just look at all the stores that will be open on Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday. It would seem that very few people are actually afraid of going places where large crowds and little security will be present.
It seems that the German people are not very excited about 500,000 Muslim refugees coming to their county, even though the government seems to be. I think you are seeing the same thing here in the States: People want the government to slow down and get it right and the government doesn’t seem to care what the people think. That is a bit frustrating.
I would agree with you that those who say “Don’t let one Muslim Refugee in, not one!” have succumbed to fear. That is a tiny portion of the dissent, and is not at all what the majority of Americans think. The rest are simply saying “Slow down, let us get this right.” That is not fear, it is prudence.
LikeLike
I do see you’re making sense Jim. I think it would be nearly impossible to think about it clearly from there. It’s difficult enough from anywhere else.
LikeLike
“I would agree with you that those who say “Don’t let one Muslim Refugee in, not one!” have succumbed to fear. That is a tiny portion of the dissent, and is not at all what the majority of Americans think. The rest are simply saying “Slow down, let us get this right.” That is not fear, it is prudence.”
Jim, I really wished you were right. Unfortunately, it’s not a tiny portion. The majority of Americans are against admitting Syrian refugees into the country.
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/11/24/poll-more-than-half-of-americans-say-no-to-syrian-refugees/
Governor Chris Christie stated that not even Syrian orphans under 5 years of age should be allowed into the U.S. What people don’t seem to understand is that it takes 18-24 months to vet refugees, which is a meticulous 21 step screening process entailing the collection of biometric data, security checks, interviews and background investigations. I also think that people seem to forget that it’s the Syrians who have been brutalized by ISIS who are Daesh. The fear caused by politicians is political.
However, I will admit that America is fertile ground for creating terrorists due to homegrown xenophobia, fear-mongering and easy access to assault weapons.
LikeLike
All the polling I have seen says the same basic thing as the Bloomberg poll: I don’t think the polls are asking the right questions.
Which of the following do you think is the best approach for the U.S. to take with refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria?
Proceed with the plan to resettle 10,000 refugees without religious screening
Resettle only Christian refugees from Syria
Do not accept any Syrian refugees into the U.S
Not Sure
I don’t think the polls are asking all the right questions.
Given those options, I can see why a small majority of Americans say “No”. But if there was another question in those polls that said: “Should the process be halted or slowed for a short time until we can make sure no terrorists slip in, then resume the plan? I think a majority of Americans would choose that option. That is just my gut feeling, based on the conversations I have had with people.
What is interesting about the Bloomberg poll is that is shows that 1 out of every 2 democrats is in favor of NOT proceeding with the Obama Administrations plan. Clearly it is a bi-partisan concern.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote: “Should the process be halted or slowed for a short time until we can make sure no terrorists slip in, then resume the plan?”
With all due respect, this is not the best question to ask Americans who have been bombarded with fear of the Other. I live on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and just a couple of miles from where I live, a Baptist church put this on the church marquee “Allah is Satan”, upsetting a peaceful Muslim community.
This past week in Texas, a group gathered in protest against Muslims, bearing weapons, including assault rifles, to intimidate peaceful Muslims while they were at their mosque.
Americans have done exactly what ISIL wanted them to do.
You wrote:“What is interesting about the Bloomberg poll is that is shows that 1 out of every 2 democrats is in favor of NOT proceeding with the Obama Administrations plan. Clearly it is a bi-partisan concern.”
The poll found a split along partisan lines. Among Republicans, just 12% want the Syrian refugee resettlement program to continue, while 69% want it ended. With Democrats, however, 46% would continue the program while 36% would shut it down. So while both parties may have concerns, the vast majority of Republicans has succumb to the fear mongering.
Forty-seven Democrats and 242 Republicans in Congress have voted to block additional refugees from entering the U.S. until more vetting stipulations are added. It’s called the Syrian Enhanced Review. That is code for halting the settlement indefinitely.
As I’ve noted, we already have a stringent and successful screening process, and there’s not going to be any shortcuts with the Syrian refugees. Refugee applicants are subject to the highest level of security checks of any type of traveler to the U.S.
A quarter of a million Syrians has been killed by their own government and ISIS. Twelve thousand of them have been children. Maybe the question we should be asking is “How many more must die before we are willing to help our fellow human beings?”
John Oliver put it into perspective: “There was only one time in American history when the fear of refugees wiping everyone out did actually come true — and we’ll all be sitting around a table celebrating it on Thursday.”
Happy Thanksgiving.
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well Victoria!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, nice. Tom’s a pathetic, horrible, small-minded, toad of a human being. He never released my comment from last year.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see how he replies to my comment. He has no grounds for deleting it and hopefully the public exposure will make feel he should have a stab at justifying that horrific post. Can’t imagine what the pope would say about it! 😀
LikeLike
He won’t free it.
LikeLike
You could be right, my comment is still in moderation and another has since been published by a supportive blogger. I’ve left another comment with a quote from his religious leader:
“Facing the tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees — fleeing death by war and famine, and journeying towards the hope of life — the Gospel calls, asking of us to be close to the smallest and forsaken. To give them a concrete hope,” he said. “And not just to tell them: ‘Have courage, be patient!”
I wonder who said that. I wonder why your Pope isn’t fear-mongering but urging all Catholics to take refugees.
Is my first comment being released from moderation or is it too difficult to tackle?
LikeLike
Nutters like him do tend to forget incidents such as Oklahoma.
LikeLike
It is interesting to see the multiple studies confirmed right before our eyes regarding the brain and conservatives — about finding increased grey matter volume in the right amygdala (fear, aggression, and anxiety). They have a far greater propensity to be manipulated by preachers and politicians. Reason, facts and stats take the back seat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/18/why-fear-is-more-prevalent-and-powerful-among-conservatives/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Victoria, isn’t the scientific name for this, The Fuckwit Syndrome?
I’m sure I read it in a medical journal somewhere?
LikeLike
That’s so interesting Victoria! I’ve never thought of it in those terms before. Are you afraid of people or do you have faith in people? There’s the political divide.
LikeLike
I guess you might say that I am afraid of people who are prone to be highly influenced by the most powerful emotion we have, fear. When fear dominates, the prefrontal cortex becomes less active and people will make decisions on animal impulse.
We are not in imminent danger. We have time to look at the evidence, analyze and access. Those who tend to be seduced by fear are less likely to do that. Empathy and compassion are squelched.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1) There is a major trust issue – I’d imagine Americans were more likely to accept a large influx of Middle Eastern refugees if they thought the government was capable of doing a good job of screening them.
If you don’t like 9/11, the war on terror, invasion of Iraq and all that business, remember that it never would have happened if the US immigration service had bothered to follow up on 11 expired visas. I’ve known scores of illegal immigrants that the government does nothing about, either because it is not capable or it does not care – probably a mixture of both.
When the Tsarnaev brothers went on their rampage in Boston we learned that the elder brother had been flagged by the Russians as a terror threat, was a murder suspect, and had a habit of beating up his girlfriends. The mom was a kleptomaniac, the kid brother and sisters were, frankly, losers. At no point did anyone in the bureaucracy ask if we really needed these people living here.
Rather than address the concern the US government is just telling people to stop being evil racists, which is not only arrogant but also a form of thought stopping: plug your ears and shout “racist” whenever you hear criticism.
2) Looking at the experiences of Europe this past decade, if your country did not have a large Muslim minority, would it want one? Now, the US has been better about integrating Muslims than Europe has, but it hasn’t been taking in large-scale numbers. Canada has also been better about integrating Muslims but they have their share of honor killings. It is OK to ask if we want these problems here, and what the plan is for integrating these immigrants.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Dpmonahan, I think, I see your point.
1) So, in this case you support a strong and controlling government?
The invasion of of Iraq happened with the pretext of the 9/11, but that fact has been more likely to increase, than to decrease terrorism. The bloody handed dictator Saddam had none what so ever connection to Osama or Al-Qaida so it made the US and Britain look like the terrorists themselves. There was also this pretext of the weapons of mass destruction, that has also been demonstrated as total bull (and in fact was debunked beforehand by Hans Blix). The pretext of ending tyranny has failed, since the US simply took the role of the torturer of Iraqis from Saddam. Replaced the terror of Sunni government with the terror of Shia government and frankly made Iran the mighties country in the region of the Gulf during the process. This is the kind of policy that begets terrorism.
The crisis in Syria and the ISIS in particular are direct reprecussions of how the US handeled the “nation building” in Iraq after the invasion. Should not the US take more responsibility of the resulting refugees? Europe is crying “refugee crisis” while most of those refugees are housed by the developing economies of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. People blame Saudi-Arabia for not having refugees, but nobody blames Israel. Why would the Syrians want to even flee to Saudi-Arabia or Israel for that matter? One is a nation led by coservative religious extremists and the other is led by a racist apartheid regime. You may guess as to wich one is wich…
2) What experiences in Europe are you referring to? My country has a large Muslim minority and we have had a Muslim minority here for over a hundred years. Muslim soldiers have fought in our wars against invading Soviet Union. What little terrorism in connection to having Muslims here has been from our own white Christian male population trying to throw Molotov cocktails into the refugee centers during the past few months.
If you are referring to the terrorist attacks in Spain, Britain and France, that is disheartening, but it is very difficult to predict wich individual is going to radicalize in the future as much as to take part in a terrorist activity of any ethnicity or religion. Let us not pretend that terrorism is something only the Muslims engage in. Not that you actually did so, but just to remind us both of the fact.
It is a bit naive notion, that all the terrorists could be screened at the border from among the refugees. And again, not that you presented it as such, but just to remind us both about the realities of life. That does not mean we should not try to do that, or that it would not help, but neither should it mean, we are out to punish people from actions they have not yet done, nor that it should happen at the expense of the refugees. That would go against our own western understanding of justice, would it not?
The best way to fight terrorism beforehand is not to limit the existing liberties and rights of people. Is it? Much better way to do this is for the western governments and nations to act in ways that do not create the bitterness from wich most of terrorism as political movements springs forth. In the end and after all, terrorism is only separated from your average school shooting, only in that it has a political motivation and the school shooter is more likely to be a mentally disturbed individual, than a political activist or religious zealot. Yet they are combined by failed lives and not just a little bit of disturbed mentality. Right? So, increasing the availability of psychiatrict treatment might help in both cases and increased and synchronized gun controll may also help in the over all amount of destruction the terrorist achieves.
Few weeks ago, a young white Christian Swede attacked a school. He was influenced by extreme right wing rethorics and racism. But he had no access to firearms, and as a result he used a sword. A sword is a weapon of war (that to be really effective demands years of rigorous training), but far less destructive, than a gun, let alone an assault rifle, that the terrorists in Paris used, that they had patched together from various deactivated weapons from around Europe (it was possible, because of the varying laws about deactivation). He was gunned down by the Swedish police after having attacked a number of students and teachers of darker skin tones. His actions were politically motivated. He could not have been screened out at the border, he was no Muslim, infact his actions were against Muslims and other immigrants from non-European descendant. Was he not a terrorist?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, when it comes to policing migration I prefer a strong government. Things like controlling the flow of migrants is why we have national governments in the first place. A government can allow people to risk their own lives, but it can’t risk their lives for them.
Thanks for sharing your litany of faith about how you think the world works, essentially that Muslims have no personal responsibility for anything and everything is the fault of evil anglophones and Jews. Touching in its simplicity, really, but I just don’t give a fuck right now.
Bush should not have invaded Iraq? I happen to agree. But I just don’t give a fuck anymore, understand? Keep terrorists out of my country.
Iraq having been invaded, Obama ought not have given Iraqi hegemony to Iran? I agree. But I don’t give a fuck. Keep terrorists out of my country.
Saudi Arabia and Israel don’t want refugees? Maybe they have good reasons. I don’t want them either unless you can prove to me they are not dangerous.
A Sweede shot up a school so that means we shouldn’t care if an Arab we import shoots up a Synagogue or gay bar? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Finland has a wonderful Muslim population? Who the fuck cares? Tell that to the dead people in Paris.
When the refugee crisis started the leaders of the EU laughed off people’s fears about ISIS infiltration. Then Paris gets shot up. The EU leaders are calculating how many of their own citizens can be murdered as collateral damage for the sake of cheap labor. And here you are convincing yourself that they are making the right choice.
LikeLike
“Bush should not have invaded Iraq? I happen to agree. But I just don’t give a fuck anymore, understand? Keep terrorists out of my country.”
Wow, and I thought you were the rational end of American conservative Christian thought. Silly me, there is no such thing.
LikeLike
Yes, our enlightened overlords should rationally subject citizens to risks they don’t want to endure, without explanation. Say, lets bring back the draft!
LikeLike
Apologies for the bad language. I should not have responded that way.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for Raut, but it’s nice to know what you really think. I’d hate to think your generally foul views were being tempered by your desire to appear like a real Christian.
LikeLike
I shouldn’t bring my factory floor language into your forum any more than I should trudge field mud into your living room in front of your guests, hence the apology. But I have no desire to keep up appearances in front of people whom I will never meet. If I did I’d just agree with you all.
LikeLike
I smell fear. Fear causes mistakes, if you obey it. You are vulnerable now – to the politicians, more than to any suicide bomber.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I smell smug. Smug causes vulnerability to politicians who engage in virtue signalling as if it were public discourse.
LikeLike
dp, you smell smug? I wonder where that’s coming from … 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got me.
LikeLike
I see how you might think that. Self-righteousness certitude is a disease of the left, and I am almost certainly to the left of you politically.
But my purpose is to point out that you are making two arguments here. One is an argument in favor of making the best of a bad situation, for everyone. The other is an argument in favor of alleviating anxiety.
The arguments are conflated, which is a disease of the modern political right. Sobriety used to be the rallying cry of conservatism, and that was a cry worth heeding. Now, the rallying cry of conservatism in the United States is a high-pitched shriek.
Put a sock in it.
LikeLike
Why yes, I did number my arguments 1 and 2. How insightful and discerning of you to figure that out.
I’m still in favor of sobriety. The regrettable outburst was directed at Rautakyy’s pile of fuzzy red herrings. The issue is risk assessment, the cost of failure is dead citizens; retreating to a litany of wiseacre wisdom about how it is all Bush’s fault and why can’t the world be more like Finland doesn’t sort that out.
LikeLike
(Keith, a bit of background to the outburst. dp has had long discussions with Raut in which his arguments have been consistently trounced, his lack of historical knowledge embarrassed and his logic humiliated. And he can’t handle this especially because it comes from a European atheist discussing matters in his second language, who is so much more ethical, polite and generally nicer than he is. He just needs to calm down from his ugly, jealous strop.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right, I should have said ‘two different arguments’ with respect to the division which you proposed.
1) The government might do a better job of screening refugees, and I’m afraid of what might happen if the government makes a mistake.
2) Integration of outsiders can lead to conflict, and I’m afraid of the potential results of such conflict.
Maybe a better division is:
1) We should be careful in how we help the Syrian refugees.
2) I’m afraid of what may happen if we help the Syrian refugees.
A clearer choice, I think, and one which makes the example of the Iraq war a more obvious lesson. The arguments about risk which were deployed to justify that adventure, served the sub-textual argument from fear rather than pragmatism. I hear a similar note from our conservative politicians in the case of the refugees.
LikeLike
The Iraq war is a bad comparison since the arguments were divorced from the motives. The goal was to set up another client state in the Middle East to effect a long-term cultural transformation in the region. The arguments were justifications used to get voter support.
I see what you mean by fear now. No, fear was not the source of my emotion because I’m more likely to be killed in a car accident or lightning strike than by a terrorist.
But a risk analysis naturally involves fear of harm, not to oneself personally but to others. If only fear of negative consequences, some of them quite predictable, had entered into the calculus leading up to the invasion of Iraq, or the withdrawal from Iraq for that matter. Instead in both cases we got actions derived from slogans divorced from reality.
Now the politicians are whipping out a new slogan, which you have eagerly swallowed as an opportunity for virtue signalling, telling us not to be ruled by fear. Why?
Answer: because the politicians have already made up their minds that the slaughter of certain number of their citizens is acceptable: “Paris is now the West Bank, shrugs, whaddaya gonna do? Hold still while I piss on your shoes and tell you its raining.”
Now, that is a calculus I accept with regard to some problems: you can reduce murders in a neighborhood with aggressive policing, but to eliminate violence you would need martial law, so we don’t go that far.
If however it is a question of an entirely avoidable risk, bringing in new element which does not need to be there, and which has caused damage to other nations, people ought not accept it, at least not without realistic plans to mitigate risk as far as possible.
Instead of plans and explanations we get slogans.
LikeLike
In your carefully calculated risk analysis, why are you giving more weight to the risk of someone slipping into your country in the refugee process, than 20 people already in your country being moved to extremism by the heightened injustice and lack of compassion resulting from millions of people being sent back to a war zone or rotting in refugee camps in undeveloped countries? Why on earth would you think that refugees are the only people who can commit atrocities, and why will you not acknowledge that injustice is a root cause of extremism? Pretty shonky if you ask me, and demonstrates that Keith was right in his initial analysis – you’re scared your life will be affected and don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else.
LikeLike
I have never advocated simply refusing refugees outright. Even when ranting at Rauk I thought I said ‘terrorist” and not Muslim. The current crop the US is arguing about is probably harmless, I just want more guarantees and an explanation of why we think we can integrate future waves of Muslims given the experiences of other countries. In general I’m against mass migrations, and can’t see why anyone would think it is a good idea.
My principle, and I think the reason why I get pissy about the subject, is that I subscribe to the enlightenment idea that a government exists to help secure the life, liberty and property of its citizens. It seems like some governments want to do everything except those basic functions. Wanting to help others is fine, but if the well being of citizens is not first, why even have a government? To whom is the government supposed to be accountable?
I don’t like this idea that Muslims have no personal agency and everything they do is a reaction to the actions of a white person. If that truly were the case, that Muslims were moral imbeciles incapable of impulse control, all the more reason to keep them out of your country. Good ol’ Keith would say you were motivated by fear of retaliation, which is what ISIS wants. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Injustice is not the root cause of terrorism, but ideology. What possible injustice did Bin Laden ever suffer? What injustice did the pampered kids of the Red Brigade ever suffer? Or, for all the injustices American Blacks have suffered, why is terrorism almost unknown among them?
From what I can see, the two main terror movements have been communism and Islamism, often aligning themselves with ethnic chauvinism (notice that the Provisional IRA, ETA, Black Panthers and AIM, even the old PLO, were all heavily influenced by Marxist thought). The thing they have in common is a belief in 1) the illegitimacy of the modern nation state and 2) a belief that their Utopian ends determine morality. All means are good, and they are always the good guys, because their goal is good.
LikeLike
“My principle, and I think the reason why I get pissy about the subject, is that I subscribe to the enlightenment idea that a government exists to help secure the life, liberty and property of its citizens.”
That must be why you’re a Christian and I’m not. I subscribe to the idea that we’re all in this together, the whole planet. And I want it to be nice for everyone – plants, animals, rocks, fish. I can’t imagine drawing boundaries just because that’s where my voting rights end. Must be a miserable little life. No wonder you’re so paranoid and angry. 🙂
LikeLike
No, a pre-enlightenment Christian would not have held to quite that expression, but would have seen the government’s first duty as being to God.
This is a practical problem: if a government is accountable to trees and rocks and people on the other side of the earth, then in practice it is not accountable to anyone.
LikeLike
When assessing risk, you must first determine the value of the best outcome. Then, you make sure that you have a handle on the subjective hazards. Lastly, you prepare as best you can for the consequences of the objective hazards.
In the case of the Syrian refugees, is there a practical need and moral rationale for providing them asylum? If so, the accepting nations should use the information at their disposal to screen the refugees, and once the refugees have been screened to the capacity of the accepting nations, those nations should provide asylum . Then, the accepting nations should be sure that their emergency response capabilities are properly buffed.
Of course, the first bit is the hard part, and drives the rest. But, there are some reasonable distinctions available, i.e. a person fleeing an active war zone is in greater need than a person fleeing a failed state, is in greater need than a person fleeing political persecution.
In response to the accusations about virtue signaling, I’d ask, why do we have societies and their attendant states if not to address the sort of needs which have driven Syrians to flee their homeland? It is possible that people are motivated to help on the basis of crass politics and ego- stroking, but it is also something to which we (civilized people) have made a tacit commitment.
Finally, understanding and accepting the consequences of objective hazards does not equate to resigning oneself to those consequences. On the contrary, ignoring or denying those consequences does – the phrase, ‘I believe we will be greeted as liberators’, comes to mind…
LikeLike
Your notions of risk analysis are not wrong, just incomplete.
States do not exist to help people from other states. States exist to serve their own citizens, from whom they derive legitimacy and to whom they are accountable.
Now, that is a very 19th century thought. Maybe had I been born in another era I’d be in favor of the Empire, Christendom, or the Caliphate, but this is the order we have, and contemporary attempts to undermine it strike me as either bumbling failures or moral disasters.
The way the refugee crisis has been handled in Europe has already been disastrous precisely because contemporary Europe, by attempting to get away from the nation state and its limitations, is also escaping accountability to citizens. The leaders of the EU want to be seen as good world citizens, and forget those for whom they are really responsible.
You are also leaving out the cultural element. Humans are not interchangeable widgets, not after a certain age. A nation is not a governmental system but a culture and a community. Culture and community are not absolute, but it they are human needs. It seems the EU is exacerbating a cultural fragmentation that has already been bad, and is likely now to get worse.
And the resignation is clear: violence like we saw in Paris is the new normal. Sure the politicians will say “If you like your synagogue you can keep your synagogue, if you like your gay bars and satirical magazines, you can keep your gay bars and satirical magazines”, as they import tens of thousands of unvetted young Arab men. Do you believe them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d agree that governments were simply accountable to their citizens – if the governments in question were simple democracies. I’d agree that nations were cultures and communities – if the nations in question were not governed as constitutional democracies.
Instead, these countries have constitutions to which the governments are also beholden. The constitutional rules are calculated to maximize the individual citizen’s potential. Isn’t that what all our talk about freedom, opportunity, justice and equality boils down to? That task is often undertaken in spite of cultural considerations.
The question of where that commitment to constitutional principles ends, will always be difficult. It should be. I think it’s likely that displaced peoples and failed states may ultimately degrade those principles, and so may be the legitimate business of constitutional democracies. Do you think that they have no business with such issues, or are you just concerned with the approach taken? If it’s the latter, how would you suggest they proceed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The constitution does not constitute the country, it constitutes the government. How many constitutions and governments has France had since the Franks settled Gaul?
As for the rest of the statement, I don’t get what you are asking.
LikeLike
If you magically shifted a denizen of the Seine river valley through time a few decades, let alone a few centuries, I think he would not recognize or identify with the country around him.
The concept is much more amorphous than our use of it suggests, and though political structures don’t constitute the nation, they are probably the most solid reference points for defining the nation.
And, a nation’s commitment to the principle of ‘democracy with ground rules’ is a defining commitment, probably more solid than any other factor which defines the national boundaries.
I’m asking if you think that the constitutional democracies do have any business taking care of displaced people, and if so, how do you think that they should go about it?
If not, why not, seeing how their founding documents reference all that stuff which we’ve taken to calling ‘human rights ‘?
LikeLike
Human communities undergo evolution, of course. But barring a major break in continuity it can be called the same community a few centuries later. It is what we call tradition, culture.
A set of laws or law or a constitution divorced from culture is a dead letter, so it is hard to see how that constitutes a nation. The U.S constitution has been copied by many countries, and those experiments have generally been failures for just that reason.
Strangers and aliens might have a claim on the help of another community. It is a question of prudence: is there a need? can we realistically fill that need? at what cost to ourselves?
If the cost is risking the lives of its own citizens then the government is simply not doing its job. In that case the only thing to do is shrug and admit that there are some problems that can’t be fixed.
The refugee crisis we’ve watched unfold in Europe did not have to reach Paris proportions. It did because EU leaders refused to exercise elemental prudence.
Was there a problem? For some migrants, yes. They were true refugees in need. For others, no, they were young guys who wanted jobs in Germany. Sorry, Germany doesn’t owe jobs to the world.
Could the problem be addressed by Europe? Maybe, to a degree, some could be resettled. Others could be camped overseas till the end of the war.
At what cost? Many European countries have a hard time integrating Muslim minorities. Terrorism has been an issue. So whatever you do you can’t let that happen, because otherwise there may as well not be a government.
LikeLike
Pingback: comment of the month – responsibility for refugees | violetwisp
For anyone interested, Quiner’s Diner did a response post to my comment.
http://quinersdiner.com/2015/11/25/common-ground-on-the-syrian-refugee-situation/
There was no actual reply to my comment or pingback to alert me, so we can assume he’s not interested in any kind of conversation, but his own private and strictly controlled echo chamber. The quote from the pope is still being held in moderation, so we’ll just remind ourselves what the pope said:
“Facing the tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees — fleeing death by war and famine, and journeying towards the hope of life — the Gospel calls, asking of us to be close to the smallest and forsaken. To give them a concrete hope,” he said. “And not just to tell them: ‘Have courage, be patient!”
LikeLike
So, where did he get the idea that Obama is rushing the vetting process? From Fox News?
LikeLike
He just replied to my pope quote. I don’t know the context, maybe you’d like to pop over and discuss it with him?
“I agree with Pope Francis. I also agree with those who believe we should vet potential refugees very carefully and to screen out potential terrorists. In other words, both sides are reasonable. In other words, both approaches are not mutually exclusive. However, Mr. Obama lacks the ability to bring people together, despite the fact that much of this mess is the fruit of his failed foreign policy strategies. His natural instincts are to mock Republicans, not persuade them. There could have been a middle ground. Republicans passed reasonable, bipartisan legislation with 47 Democrats voting with Republicans. The American public overwhelming agrees. The president’s delicate ego compels him to veto it.”
LikeLike