On Refusing "Syrian" Refugees - Lack of Compassion or an Application of Common Sense?


Recent news, across the board, has discussed the issue of allowing and/or not allowing "Syrian" refugees entry into the United States.

Those opposing entry of these "refugees" are accused of not displaying the compassion for which America is known, of being "racists", and the like. Those advocating entry of these "refugees" are accused of being soft on terrorists and of being ignorant of the inherent security risks such entry would bring - among other things.

Whether these people from Syria's current conflict are truly "refugees" or terrorists embedded in the refugee group is argumentative. Clearly, not all of these people are terrorists. But, if even a few are, is it worth the risk to the safety of the American people and our way of life to allow open and unvetted entry into our country?

The issue of the "refugees" is compounded by the government's position on immigration in general. Millions of illegal immigrants have entered our country across the Mexican border and untold numbers of foreigners have overstayed their visas. Many of these people are criminals - convicted criminals - and, of course, many are not. But, the government seems to not treat this entire issue seriously.

Per the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records, in the year 2103 alone, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released - not through due process, just released - convicted criminals into society:

A total of 36,607 convicted criminal illegal immigrants were released.

    - 193 of these had homicide convictions

    - 426 of these had sexual assault convictions

    - 1.075 of these had aggravated assault convictions

    - 9,000+ of these had dangerous drug dealing convictions

    - And, as to these 36,607 they were responsible for just under 88,000 total criminal convictions

Polls taken show a range from 72% to 54% of those Americans responding indicate the majority of us are against allowing these "refugees" into our country. And, the number of people against such is growing; and, is clearly bipartisan. The reasons seem to be not a lack of compassion, but a valid concern that the government does little to assure our safety. As there is no database of information on these "refugees", there is no way of properly vetting them.

Now, combine this with the fact that the government's dismal record of assuring our safety from those who have entered our country illegally, and you arrive at the shared opinion that, at this time, having more people that may prove problematic to our safety is not a desirable thing.

The president has attempted to assuage our concerns not by addressing the concerns, but by denigrating Republicans and anyone else disagreeing with him. His statements such as, "Apparently, they are scared of widows and orphans..." and, "...now they're worried about 3 year old orphans." is far from reassuring. Note: the video of the president making these statements is available at the bottom of this offering.

But, let's analyze his statements.

OK. Who exactly are these "widows and orphans"?

Let's take "widows" first. Obviously, he was referring to women who had lost their husbands, in some manner, due to the conflict in Syria. And, just as obvious, there are such women, perhaps many. However, as is being widely reported, women are being recruited by ISIS in a major way. and, of course, there is this story. Therefore, just because a person is a woman is no guarantee that she is not a terrorist - especially if one may assume that these same women may have hard feelings against those they believe responsible for the death of their husbands.

Next, "orphans". As we all know, an orphan is a child who has lost both of their parents by some means. And, how do we define a "child"? In the United States, a "child" legally is defined as one who is less than 18 years old. So, does the president want us to believe that no one under the age of 18, regardless of circumstances, could be a terrorist? Well, that won't wash; many terrorists are under the age of 18. And, more being trained in terrorism every day.

Now, let's look at his "3 year old orphans" implication:

I feel it safe to say that not many, if any, of us would feel a threat from a 3 year old - no matter where they came from. However, not so fast there. If one reasonably assumes that the president was talking about very small children - not necessarily 3 year olds specifically, then perhaps some actual facts may be of help. Click Here, Click Here, Click Here, and Click Here.

So, it should be obvious that the president's statements were mean to create the perception of a lack of compassion by those who disagree with him. Further, for anyone willing to do the research on anything politicians offer, the truth will arise. Unfortunately, most people do not or will not do the necessary research.

No, people who are against the "refugees" coming to our shores are NOT lacking in compassion, not are they racists, nor are they any of the other negative terms used to describe them. Rather, they are fearful of the aftermath of all who come into our country who pose a risk to our safety. People are looking at what is going on in Europe with these "refugees" and they are seeing the downward spiral of our way of life (i.e., dangerous criminals being released by the government and allowed to roam our streets - among other issues) due to unfettered illegal immigration; and, they are worried and frightened - especially when no one knows, or can find out, the histories and/or backgrounds of "refugees" and others entering our country.

The president's statements in his own words on Republicans and, indirectly, on those who disagree with him:

The contents of the page could not be displayed.

This can be caused by the following reasons: