Equivocating the Syrian Refugee Issue…

Written by Scott

Topics: Archives, Blog, Family, Social Media


Since equivocation is the current trend in ‘discussing’ the Syrian refugee issue, let me ask y’all a question: How many of you locked your doors last night?

If you did, are you really showing compassion to the homeless outside your walls, or even to those who have less than you, and wish to avail themselves of your property? Or are you only being selfish, and thus also hypocritical?

Or…in relation to the Syrian refugee crisis, might there be much more to the issue than only compassion? 

This isn’t anything like previous refugee emigrations, be it from Europe during WW2, or Vietnam, or anywhere else. So stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Or just leave your house and car unlocked to show how truly compassionate you are. It’s your choice, after all…

While you think about it, check this out on Amazon:

Black Flags

2 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. poliTICKLING says:

    I believe open, civil dialog about this issue is productive. I also respectfully disagree with your analogy.

    I believe a better analogy would be whether you would allow a homeless shelter in your city or neighborhood. There are concerns about whether the community has the resources to adequately take care of a vulnerable population, concerns about the culture changing with the influx of people living a different lifestyle, and concerns about whether the safety of the community will be impacted. In a worst case scenario, it could affect you in your home. Even people who feel it is necessary to provide shelter for the homeless often acknowledge that some locations are more suitable than others for shelters. There is also fear and sometimes hostility towards that population because of perceptions or anecdotes.

    Do I think hostility is ever justified? No. I also think it’s always important to remember that refugees and homeless are people, not criminals by virtue of their circumstance. Criminals are criminals, and there are plenty who are not homeless or refugees, and there could also be some who are.

    I understand that more than just the issue of compassion is involved, and people with good intentions can come up with with different conclusions.

    I also believe that people with good intentions on both sides can also fall prey to anecdotes, assumptions and emotion and react hastily without considering real data and risks.

    We tend towards underestimating larger existing risks and overestimating risks that are new to us. It’s like Americans who were more scared of ebola than the flu, even though more Americans have died and will die from the flu. Was there a risk from ebola? Technically, sure. It is rational to take dramatic measures like disallowing or quarantining incoming travel from Africa BEFORE taking equally dramatic measures to mitigate the greater risk to American life from the flu? No.

    (To be clear, I believe the risk from ISIS is greater than ebola.)

    Do I believe that unvetted border crossing by millions of refugees is wise? No. But I do believe that our interest in getting the people who are fleeing the terror or ISIS is great, and we can mitigate the risk associated with refugees to a much greater degree than other, greater risks that we’re ignoring.

    That turned out much longer than I originally intended, but there it is. 🙂

    • Scott Kuhn says:

      I intentionally used the false dichotomy to make the point that the issue is far more complex than what sides (particularly the left) is making it out to be.