Wow, it's really been two years since I wrote a blog post hunh? I originally used this blog as way to share my travels as a student in Rome with my family and friends. At the end of that chapter, I continued to use it to share the little joys and revelations that life presented to me. I came back to it today because I needed some space to think and put some ideas out there. I'm hesitant to hit publish on this because it is such a sensitive subject and I really value my relationships with my family and friends and the last thing I would want to do is alienate or offend anyone. That is not at all my intent and as such I will do my best to write this as politely and inoffensively as possible. If I do rub you the wrong way please accept this apology in advance.
I came back to the blog though after spending the better part of an evening being bothered by a National Review article that a facebook friend had posted: http://www.nationalreview.com/syrian-refugees-arent-1939s-jews?6YgLRkLI5IcWlH7q.01
Initially, I simply responded to the issue of using American attitudes towards central European Jews pre-WWII as a comparison to American attitudes towards Syrian refugees. It is as follows: I don't know, I think it's a yes and no. Is what happened to the Jewish people during the holocaust a reason to throw caution the the wind and let in all Syrian refugees? No way. Is it a good reminder that we have a history as a people of making xenophobic, bigoted decisions towards people we view as "other"? Yeah, definitely. Not saying this to accuse you of that at all, I just think there's probably a middle ground here.
However, the National Review article continued to bother me especially the "prudential reasons" it gave for not admitting Syrian refugees. This perseveration compounded upon my growing frustration with the anit-immigration tenor of the Republican primary campaigns. I come down on the conservative side on the majority of issues but for the life of me I am really struggling to understand the widespread current hostility towards immigrants. Perhaps that's part of the reason for this post, to get some help understanding why I feel like I'm way out there in my views on this issue.
My largest beef with the National Review's article was the paragraph where it claimed that Central European Jews offer a false comparison to Syrian Muslims because the Jews were well integrated into Western European culture (in which America was a participant) where as "the intellectual, cultural, and political traditions of Syria are not in concert with those of the West." I'm not disputing the fact that Syrian culture is very different from American or Western European culture. What I dispute is that this view gives much too lenient a pass to most of our immigrant ancestors. To say nothing of the people of Eastern ancestry that currently make up hugely successful portions of our citizenry, I want to point out how entirely unsuited almost all of ancestors where to being good, integrated Americans. What did my ancestors coming from 19th Century Imperial Germany know about being democratic citizens, what did Italians of the same time period know of it. How about those fleeing the communist bloc a hundred years later? There were no shortage of "good Americans" pointing this out at those times either. The reality is that, as any good chest-thumbing American patriot will tell you, our country has been something of leader in these democracy and culture things for the last couple hundred years. Therefore almost anyone coming to this country has had to go through some serious acclimation, a process that normally takes a few generations.
Before I get too far I should say that I totally believe that the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens. However, is refusing to accept Syrian refugees really serving this end? It seems to me like the classic gun control argument could be applied here as well. For gun control, the argument runs that banning guns wouldn't keep bad actors from getting firearms and using them for evil, rather it would primary restrict the ability of citizen to use guns for legitimate ends. Will banning Syrian refugees keep terrorists out of our country? I don't think so. That's no excuse for not taking every reasonable precaution to prevent terrorist for entering under the guise of refugees, it's just to say that if ISIS is completely determined to get their agents into our country they will find other ways.
My last point of contention with the National Review is its argument that, where as Jews were fleeing from Germany, the Syrian refugees applying for entry to America are mostly trying to come from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. As the author says, "it is one thing to rescue Jews from imminent danger; it is another to offer greater safety to those who already have it." For real? If violence, lack of opportunity, and factional hate is what leading a few young people to be able to commit such incredibly horrific acts as what recently happened in Paris then why, why would I wish any of them to remain in countries that are only one rung up the ladder in those respects than the land that they are fleeing? Why would I not prefer for them to come to the freest, most prosperous country in the world, where they could be given a peaceful, hospitable welcome and the opportunity to make anything they wanted of their lives? I know that there are risks in this proposal but there are so many risks in our modern world that it is incredible to me to reject such a positive good that we could give for the sake of an illusion of safety.
I am so grateful for having been born an American, to the good, hardworking great-grandchildren of German immigrants. I am so grateful for the opportunities that I've been handed in life simply on the grounds of where I was born. There's a lot of polemical talk in the city in which I live now about how the American dream is dead, but that is very much not my experience. I hope and I pray that we can continue to make the courageous decision to share our beautiful birth right with "others", whether they be Syrian, or Latino, or anything else under the sun.
I came back to the blog though after spending the better part of an evening being bothered by a National Review article that a facebook friend had posted: http://www.nationalreview.com/syrian-refugees-arent-1939s-jews?6YgLRkLI5IcWlH7q.01
Initially, I simply responded to the issue of using American attitudes towards central European Jews pre-WWII as a comparison to American attitudes towards Syrian refugees. It is as follows: I don't know, I think it's a yes and no. Is what happened to the Jewish people during the holocaust a reason to throw caution the the wind and let in all Syrian refugees? No way. Is it a good reminder that we have a history as a people of making xenophobic, bigoted decisions towards people we view as "other"? Yeah, definitely. Not saying this to accuse you of that at all, I just think there's probably a middle ground here.
However, the National Review article continued to bother me especially the "prudential reasons" it gave for not admitting Syrian refugees. This perseveration compounded upon my growing frustration with the anit-immigration tenor of the Republican primary campaigns. I come down on the conservative side on the majority of issues but for the life of me I am really struggling to understand the widespread current hostility towards immigrants. Perhaps that's part of the reason for this post, to get some help understanding why I feel like I'm way out there in my views on this issue.
My largest beef with the National Review's article was the paragraph where it claimed that Central European Jews offer a false comparison to Syrian Muslims because the Jews were well integrated into Western European culture (in which America was a participant) where as "the intellectual, cultural, and political traditions of Syria are not in concert with those of the West." I'm not disputing the fact that Syrian culture is very different from American or Western European culture. What I dispute is that this view gives much too lenient a pass to most of our immigrant ancestors. To say nothing of the people of Eastern ancestry that currently make up hugely successful portions of our citizenry, I want to point out how entirely unsuited almost all of ancestors where to being good, integrated Americans. What did my ancestors coming from 19th Century Imperial Germany know about being democratic citizens, what did Italians of the same time period know of it. How about those fleeing the communist bloc a hundred years later? There were no shortage of "good Americans" pointing this out at those times either. The reality is that, as any good chest-thumbing American patriot will tell you, our country has been something of leader in these democracy and culture things for the last couple hundred years. Therefore almost anyone coming to this country has had to go through some serious acclimation, a process that normally takes a few generations.
Before I get too far I should say that I totally believe that the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens. However, is refusing to accept Syrian refugees really serving this end? It seems to me like the classic gun control argument could be applied here as well. For gun control, the argument runs that banning guns wouldn't keep bad actors from getting firearms and using them for evil, rather it would primary restrict the ability of citizen to use guns for legitimate ends. Will banning Syrian refugees keep terrorists out of our country? I don't think so. That's no excuse for not taking every reasonable precaution to prevent terrorist for entering under the guise of refugees, it's just to say that if ISIS is completely determined to get their agents into our country they will find other ways.
My last point of contention with the National Review is its argument that, where as Jews were fleeing from Germany, the Syrian refugees applying for entry to America are mostly trying to come from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. As the author says, "it is one thing to rescue Jews from imminent danger; it is another to offer greater safety to those who already have it." For real? If violence, lack of opportunity, and factional hate is what leading a few young people to be able to commit such incredibly horrific acts as what recently happened in Paris then why, why would I wish any of them to remain in countries that are only one rung up the ladder in those respects than the land that they are fleeing? Why would I not prefer for them to come to the freest, most prosperous country in the world, where they could be given a peaceful, hospitable welcome and the opportunity to make anything they wanted of their lives? I know that there are risks in this proposal but there are so many risks in our modern world that it is incredible to me to reject such a positive good that we could give for the sake of an illusion of safety.
I am so grateful for having been born an American, to the good, hardworking great-grandchildren of German immigrants. I am so grateful for the opportunities that I've been handed in life simply on the grounds of where I was born. There's a lot of polemical talk in the city in which I live now about how the American dream is dead, but that is very much not my experience. I hope and I pray that we can continue to make the courageous decision to share our beautiful birth right with "others", whether they be Syrian, or Latino, or anything else under the sun.
No comments:
Post a Comment