A brief timeline.
Germany welcomed a whole lot of refugees. There was much support and goodwill. The Germans were praised by the rest of the world, the only mild criticism was “Do you really know what your capacity is, and don’t you need some sort of limit for the sake of practicality?”
Then there were the Paris attacks. I’m still not sure if it was one or two attackers that truly came out of a crowd of refugees, but everybody else was a supportive player in place already, moving freely through the Schengen zone and taking advantage of how Belgium and France don’t share intelligence very well.
This led to much fear in the US. Even though we don’t have to worry about cooperation between intelligence agencies, even though we don’t have to worry about a physically shared border, even though we have a stringent and reliable selection process which is now on high alert, even though there are much easier and quicker ways for terrorists to get here, even though plenty of supportive people are already here to begin with- maybe we should tell millions of refugees to go somewhere else, because we’re scared that one or two terrorists might go out of their way to be among them before they attack.
And it really would be going out of their way. If they just want to attack, there are easier and more direct ways to get it done. The only reason they’d go out of their way to spend time within a refugee population is so that they can make people (like us) be afraid of refugees and make their lives harder than they have to be.
Anyway. The main argument of late, made especially food-oriented by Mike Huckabee, has to do with the idea that some type of food is partly poisoned, so you don’t want any part of it.
This seems to imply, rather strongly, that America will be more safe if we turn refugees away. We can prevent acts of terror from happening.
Guess what just happened recently? I’ve been saying this for weeks- you’re so afraid of the poisoned Skittle among the otherwise good Skittles, but the truth is we already have plenty of people already in the US that are sympathetic to ISIS and are more than capable of carrying out acts of terror with or without any help from someone who recently resided in Syria, with or without the cover of false refugee status. (And it’s much simpler and easier without going to all that trouble, especially when it’s North America instead of Europe).
So this terror attack has happened. San Bernardino. No they were not directly affiliated with ISIS, yes they were sympathetic and declared allegiance to them (which ISIS thanked them for), it was more of an ideological alignment than it was a coordinated effort, but one very important thing is that they didn’t need any help from any Syrian terrorist disguised as some sort of refugee. That was completely unnecessary, and despite lacking that assistance they did just fine.
They were really low key about it too, no sign of anything going on beforehand. They had communication with people under investigation, but nothing that raised a red flag. We still don’t know exactly what or who it was that radicalized them.
With all that being said. Can we go ahead and take in some refugees now? Can we go back to supporting the idea of helping those who are most in need of it? We have lots of bad Skittles here that we will continue to have to deal with no matter what we do with that situation, and hopefully that’s been driven home in the past few days.
And please, even if you disagree, next time you make a food-related argument about poison or some such thing, please do make a mental note to acknowledge that we already do have poison among us whether we do the right thing by these refugees or not. Most recently, the poisoned Skittles looked like this, and they were not disguised as Syrian refugees, nor did they need any sort of help from someone like that.
In essence, speaking directly now to those who are about to disagree with me, it’s about time you start portraying the threat as an Elevation of an Already Non-Zero threat of terrorism (which is fairly questionable on the elevation part). Is there also a non-zero threat from refugees? Yes, probably. Is it definitely a greater threat than what we already face from people currently living here, and is it greater to the extent that it counters the good we could do for refugees overall?
You could argue that it might be that way. But it very well may not, I would argue that there is quite a bit of evidence against.