Security vs. Compassion?
 |
| Photo by Phil Warren on Flickr & link on original article |
Not that we've been asked.
Months ago, President Obama simply announced that "we" would take 10,000 refugees. After last Friday's terrorist attack in Paris, and upon evidence that one of the perpetrators came into Europe with other refugees, 31 governors declared that their states will not accept Syrian refugees. [Editor's Note: Only 14 state Governors has said Okay to Syrian Refugees & 32nd state's newly elected governor he will oppose taking refugees - more info here]
But note: this country doesn't belong to Obama; those states don't belong to those governors.
Back in September, I floated a different approach. "If I were president, I'd push for Congress to pass legislation specifically authorizing the acceptance of as many Syrian refugees as [Americans] stepped forward to sponsor. . . ."
"Sponsors could be individuals, families, churches, glee clubs, what-have-you, and would agree to cover costs for the Syrian person or family for one year or two or three," I proposed. "But no welfare, no food stamps, no government housing. . . ."
Granted, my suggestion came before the latest terrorism. It was aimed not at security concerns but at sparing taxpayers. Why shouldn't voluntary generosity dictate the extent of "our" generosity?
But come to think of it, my plan offers greater security, too. Why? It involves the personal faces of citizens, not merely a faceless bureaucracy. No matter how much vetting the government does, an ongoing link to an actual American provides another check.
There's a legitimate debate about security vs. compassion. Millions are in need, displaced by terror -- from both Daesh (ISIS) and the Assad regime. The Niskanen Center's David Bier notes the resistance to accepting Jewish refugees prior to and during World War II, out of fear some might be spies. Christians may find Matthew 25:44-45 compelling.
On the other hand, there is undeniable risk. GOP presidential aspirants have called taking Syrian refugees "insane" and "looney." Speaker Paul Ryan argues for a "better safe than sorry" pause.
Me? I support accepting the risk . . . but only if committed individual citizens step forward.
Not by any politician's decree.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
------------------
Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is also President of the Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe) as well as Citizens in Charge Foundation. Jacobs is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Paul Jacob, Common Sense, security vs. Compassion, Syrian refugees, ISIS, terriristsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 11:30 AM - Post Link
2 Comments:
In years past before welfare all immigrants and refugees had sponsors. The government outside of processing costs including physical checkups did not spend a single dime.
Leanne, Indeed, and with the growing welfare state, people have forgotten the past.
Post a Comment
<< Home