CHLOE’S CORNER
–by Chloe Sweeney
The question on the world’s mind is, “How should we respond to the Syrian refugee crisis?” In this piece, I will be presenting my personal opinion on how I believe America should respond. This does not necessarily reflect the views of Palm Valley School or my fellow blog constituents.
Recently thirty-one United States governors released statements on their refusal to accept Syrian refugees in light of the recent Paris attacks. These governors are from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. This has been matched with only seven US governors stating their willingness to accept Syrian refugees. These are governors from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. This issue has gone far beyond party lines. Despite this outcry from the states, the decision on whether or not to accept refugees lies with the federal government. President Barrack Obama has so far remained firm that the US will accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. The states can make the executive branch’s task a lot more difficult by refusing to cooperate with the President or defunding programs that pay for refugee resettlement. A bill recently passed in the House of Representatives to halt the President’s refugee plan until a secure vetting system is put in place.
The President has vowed to veto this bill but thankfully the House has enough votes to reverse such a veto.
People seem to feel like we either need to allow Syrian refugees to enter our country, or we need to leave them alone in the cold. I don’t believe the situation is that simple. I feel very strongly that Syrian refugees, regardless of their faith, should not be allowed to enter my country. I believe that security is a fundamental right that Americans are entitled to. I want to feel safe going to school, sporting events, and church. I understand that the VAST majority of Syrian refugees are not radical Muslims, but we have absolutely no way to discern who these people really are. With Syria’s loss of infrastructure, there are no background checks or ways to confirm the validity of these people’s identities. Two weeks ago, five men were detained in Honduras for possessing fake Syrian passports. Experts have reason to believe that these men wanted to reach the United States to carry out jihadist attacks. One of the Paris attackers, as reported by CNN, is believed by experts to have disguised himself as a refugee who entered Europe from Greece, travelled to Belgium, and then on to Paris to help carry out the massacre. My opinion before, during, and after the Paris attacks has remained firm that Syrian refugees cannot be allowed to come to the United States. The risk of American lives is far too great. There are too many cracks in the vetting system for radical Islamic terrorists to slip through. There is absolutely no way to ensure the safety of all American citizens. The President’s number one job is to protect his nation, and it is not possible for Barrack Obama to fulfill his duty if we allow Syrian refugees to come to America. I implore President Obama to reconsider his resettlement plan.
I do believe that we have a responsibility to help the Syrian people. I think there are many different avenues on how to do this, besides letting them enter America. What I propose is creating a no-fly or safe zone in Syria and Iraq for refugees. There the US and other countries can provide humanitarian aid such as food, water, shelter, and health care. As fellow humans, we have an obligation to do our part to help these people. Ultimately, once they have been given the resources, we will need the Syrian people to restore stability and rebuild their own country. Once the civil war is over and ISIS is eliminated, the Syrian people must be responsible for their own country.
The terror group, ISIS, already causes me fear. The idea that they could reach me at home is absolutely horrifying. They threaten my life, my family’s lives, my freedom, and my faith. ISIS already has the means through social media, lone-wolf attackers, and the recruiting/radicalization of Americans to stage attacks in the United States. As we have seen with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and 9/11, we are well within the grasp of radical Islam. We must eliminate the possibility of terrorists infiltrating our homeland. For these reasons, I ask that Syrian refugees not be allowed to enter America.
First of all, It is not good to use “radical” to describe violent Muslim. For example, I am a radical Chinese because I follows Chinese tradition strongly, but this does not mean I am a bad Chinese who makes fake staff and crap.
Secondly, I agree your opinion that American should not set refugee in America. I am afraid things go like plots of Resident Evil. If American allow bad people sneak in America, It will not only cause chaos in America but also in the whole world. However, I do not agree your suggestion. There must be a better way to solve this problem.
The first to defeating the ideas of radical Islam is to call it what it is. Until the President and American people can admit this we will never succeed in defeating it. –Chloe
Accepting refugees from the other side of the planet might not be the most efficient means of achieving safety and security for the majority of Syrian people. Part of this solution must include establishing a safe zone within Syria through the implementation of a no-fly zone and UN Peacekeepers. As has occurred before in the Middle East, if the best of the Syrian people desert their country, only the religious radicals will be left behind to govern once the dust has settled. A larger part of the response should include pressure on Middle Eastern allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Saudi Arabia has the ability to house hundreds of thousands of refugees, including fully constructed (and unused) refugee camps. Turkey (a member of both NATO and the EU) is currently funding ISIS both directly and through the illegal purchase of oil from Syria.
This article raises the larger issue of whether Americans are putting themselves at risk by accepting Syrian refugees. At this time, we have found no evidence connecting Syrian refugees to acts of terrorism in the US or abroad, however, it is conceivable that terrorists could use the refugee crisis to gain access to the USA and its allies. The question we should ask ourselves is whether refusing to help those in need will really keep us safe; I am not convinced that it will. Even if we could ensure our own safety by ignoring the suffering of others, it would not be the right thing to do. We cannot sacrifice our values in response to fear, even if we are afraid.
I completely on your first part. The only way for any method of rebuilding Syria to be successful is with the involvement of the Syrian people and their closest neighbors. On your second part, acknowledge that one of the men who carried the Paris massacre entered Europe by disguising himself as a Syrian refugee. I do agree that the danger of radical Islam goes beyond just Syrian refugees and ISIS as we have seen from the San Bernardino attacks this week. –Chloe
BTW, congratulations on writing a well- written and reasoned article. It’s never easy to express a dissenting viewpoint, however, those views are usually the most important to hear. It’s nice to see that intelligent people within the PVS student community can disagree without becoming disagreeable.
I believe that would should provide aid with food and water and other necessities, but do not allow them into the U.S.
We are praying for the victims in the San Bernadino attacks recently.
Clearly, we have threats from within our country and from outside. It seems hard to properly vet people coming in where their governments cannot be trusted to give us accurate information.
“Radical” is an appropriate word, but “fanatical” seems to capture the idea of what the Paris attackers or even San Bernadino couple were about.
Radical definition:
“advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party”
Fanatical definition:
marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea
If you are excessively enthusiastic about something — a sports team, an actor, your religion, saving the whales, a certain brand of chocolate — then you are fanatical about it.
Fanatical comes from the word fanatic, which itself came from the Latin fanaticus, meaning “mad” or “inspired by a deity.” The root word is fanum, or “temple.” The original English meanings of both fanatic and fanatical implied that the person being described was insane with enthusiasm, like a religious zealot. The word fan is likely shortened from fanatic, and thus shares the same roots, but that word doesn’t imply the same obsessiveness that fanatical does.
I can’t imagine labeling a person who decapitates others not of his faith and then uses the head as a soccer ball…all in the name of God….as a religious zealot, or a radical ANYTHING….he’s simply a very sick psychopath.
In this mass exodus of human beings …. what is the ratio of suffering humanity to dysfunctional psychopaths?? How does that ratio compare with the ratio of law abiding American citizens to criminally dangeous armed psychopaths with social secuirty numbers. In this country, it is already unsafe to go “to school, sporting events, and church” and work and the mall and the highways and grocery stores.
We do not forsake our own universal God-given rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in order to fearfully cope with American miscreants. We “guarantee” the right to own weapons even to Americans who would use them to kill us. It’s hypocritical to deny God-given rights to a destitute Syrian family, because we fear Moslem miscreants who want to kill us.
Our incredible nation, has FEARLESSLY embraced the challenges and controversies of accepting “strangers” for 3 centuries. It is our American character. We have survived the conficts and risks and have flourished as never before in human history. How have we become so fearfully insular?
Our immigration “policy” is etched in stone on the Statue of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the HOMELESS, TEMPEST-TOSSED TO ME! I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door!”.
I remember, in my high school History class, learning of a boat called the St Louis, that sailed from Germany in 1939 with nearly 1,000 Jewish passengers escaping from the terrors of the Nazi Holocaust. When they reached Havana, Cuba, a small number were given visas. Most were turned away. The ship sailed to America. Off the coast of Florida, the ship was stopped and denied entrance to Miami. President Roosevelt ignored the refugees’ plea for asylum, and 908 Jewish refugees were forced to return to Nazi Germany!
I remember being emotionally stunned by that litle known fact.
I remember being….angry….ashamed!
People in leadership positions are forced to make arduous decisions all the time. I think we can all agree that President Roosevelt was one of the finest men to sit in the Oval Office, and I am confident that he would not have declined the refugees’ entrance to America if it did not pose a threat to American citizens. This is the same decision that President Obama must make. I understand that is suffering in Syria and Iraq, but the first and most important priority of the President of the United States is to protect HIS people, not those abroad. — Chloe S.
I completely agree that the issue of terrorism is both domestic and abroad. The difference is there is a group on the other side of the world who is hell bent on destroying us. The principle os accepting the homeless and the “tempest-tossed” is beautiful, but sadly it cannot be a reality. With all of the miscreants already inside our borders, it would be foolish to allow this mass exodus of people to come when we can guarantee with 100% certainty that there will evil fanatical Muslims who try to slip in as well. With so much turmoil already in our country that we cannot handle, why would we put ourselves in a situation that exposes us to likelihood of more evil?
Freedom from danger cannot be 100% guaranteed. We do all we can to protect ourselves. Let’s do as much as we can to discern those in need from those who want to hurt us. Agreed. Do NOT accept the “huddled masses”! Investigate, check background, use technology, observe, record…..then accept and monitor needy people… and reject the questionably disingenuous. To refuse ALL because we fear FEW seems prejudicial to me.
Again, I think it would be great to accept needy people from Syria after an extensive background check. Unfortunately, like I said in my article, the loss of Syrian infrastructure has made it impossible to properly vet potential refugees.
That’s a moving and disturbing story about the Jews who were turned away…emphasizing how important it is to work for a haven for those in urgent danger.