Thursday, November 19, 2015


The news of the day is all about Syrian refugees. President Obama chides the Republicans for wringing their hands over the flood of Syrians seeking asylum on our shores. A number of Governors have announced their intention to refuse to cooperate in settling refugees.

It’s a question that has divided our nation. It has become a kind of litmus test that determines whether your concern for the welfare of your fellow human beings out ranks your concern for the welfare of your state and nation.

Our President describes the refugees as women and their three year old children. Surely providing shelter for women and children is a work of charity with universal appeal.

The Governors who would deny refuge see it differently. Many are concerned that refugees are not fully or properly ‘vetted’ meaning that we don’t know enough about them to be confident that they come in peace.

Surely no one wants to welcome thousands of potential Islamic terrorists to our homeland. Some spokesmen for the administration have insisted that we have a ‘robust’ system of vetting, that we can be confident that the refugees come to our shores in peace and brotherhood.

At the same time there are other voices, some quite knowledgeable, who insist that the vetting process is inadequate and deeply flawed. They are saying that we simply do not have reliable background information on most refugees, and we do not have the manpower or resources in place to investigate every person who knocks on our door.

Whether all of the refugees are, as described on the statue of Liberty, “wretched homeless refuse yearning to breathe free” or whether indeed some of them are fanatic Jihad enemies of freedom and democracy is a question we ought to address before we undertake to offer wholesale asylum.

I recently wrote a blog in which I insisted that Syria should be a Syrian problem; that Syrian territory belongs to and should be governed by the indigenous population.

Preparing this blog, I went on Google and asked to see pictures of the Syrian refugees. Google obliged with pages and pages of pictures. To my utter surprise, I discovered that the mass of people known as Syrian Refugees are at least fifty percent males. Military aged males. Young men who, in our country, would automatically be included in what our Constitution calls ‘the militia.’

They are the people who would be drafted to fight for the homeland. They are the able bodied males who are expected to step up and fight to protect their homes, their wives, their children, their families.

Why are they leaving Syria? Aren’t they Syrians? Why won’t they stand and fight for their homes?

Why are 19 and 20 year old men seeking refuge in Europe and the United States when their ancient motherland is in turmoil?

And while we are asking questions, here is another: why aren’t the Persian Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qator and Bahrain taking in any Syrian refugees? They have a lot more in common with Syrians then Frenchmen, Germans or Americans do. And they are a lot closer.

All of which leads me to offer this suggestion to the several America Governors who are resisting the influx of Syrian refugees: why not simply declare that no able bodied adult males will be welcomed? That is a form of vetting which is easy to enforce, and should go a very long way to comfort those citizens who are concerned about the Trojan Horse syndrome.

When Bush 43 was told of the attack on the World Trade Center, his immediate reaction was “We are at war.” France’s President Hollande came to the same conclusion after the November 13 attack on Paris. The problem in both cases is defining just who we are at war against.

I should think that a formal declaration of war would define the enemy, and what the object of the war will be. If, as seems to be the case, the enemy is radical Islamic terrorists, (RITS?) what is the goal? How do we define winning? Are we bent on killing all the RITS? Or are we merely intent on punishing those who attack us?

No Christian nation will knowingly adopt genocide as a public policy. The question is, how do you fight an ideology?

No comments:

Post a Comment