Against the Ban
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain
A few days ago I issued a challenge that people should come up with 3 reasons the other side of the refugee “ban” debate is correct - or how they would argue for the opposing view. This is meant to challenge emotions or biases that often infiltrate our thinking. Too often social media turns into this group think project where we block dissenting friends from our timeline and like/share only what we agree with. My beliefs is you should never be afraid to challenge your own opinion. And your argument is only stronger when you can view it from the other side.
To make it clear I support the Executive Order and feel it is in the best interests of the United States. That being said I understand why people are so emotionally involved with this tough issue and why so many are vehemently opposed to it. I also understand that the Executive Order is not a perfect solution as there is no such thing and there is great potential for harm whichever decision Trump went with.
Below are my three main points to oppose the “ban”. I will say upfront that parts of these arguments are based on suppositions of what the future may hold. It is impossible to know what will happen. However, at the same time we can look at history and use reason to at least attempt to come up with likely scenarios. I will also say I have not done in-depth analysis of these arguments i.e. there is not a significant amount of data to back these up. They are only high level views of how I would argue and so data is not something I have relied on heavily - if at all.
The Economic Impact.
I have two thoughts to go along with this point:
The first being how much will it cost to change policies/rules and everything else that goes along with additional screening of refugees. Some of the refugees already here may have to be sent back. There will to be additional training for those responsible with the vetting process. There may be a need to hire more bureaucrats to increase our security posture. The debt is already a major concern. Why should the federal government go out of its way to pile on additional costs to its already bloated budget.
The second point being what will we lose as an economy due to keeping out potential business owners, inventors, teachers, etc.There have been multiple warnings issued by CEOs - especially from the tech industry - regarding the hardship this will put on finding qualified employees for certain roles. Many of those who want to come here from these seven countries were successful in their fields prior to the civil war or proliferation of ISIS. GDP growth has been practically stagnant for many years and perhaps these individuals would provide a short- and long-term boost. For instance there is one example given where 38 new businesses were started in and around Cleveland, Ohio, creating 175 jobs and providing a $12 million boost to the local economy.
The Security Impact.
When I was in Afghanistan a few years ago all of the linguists were refugees from the earlier wars with Russia and the Taliban. They wanted to do all they could to help fight extremest elements within their country and religion. They wanted to give back to countries that had sheltered them during a great time of need. They know the culture and the land better than we ever will. On the flip side when we refuse entrance to refugees it provides an opportunity for groups like ISIS to use propaganda against us and our cause. “We don’t care about them.” “We are fighting Islam.” These are the arguments that will be used to recruit young men and women whom we could’ve brought here to fight with us. Why would we ever refuse entry to those who could be great allies especially when the alternative is for them to fight against us? In this type of modern warfare we are fighting not just people, but ideas. We need to welcome those within the Islamic community who will assist us in opposing jihadists within their faith.
The Moral Impact.
This to me is by far the strongest argument. This is what I wrestle with the most. What happens to the conscious of a nation that abandons women and children in a war-zone. When the Jews were seeking asylum during the Holocaust how many countries rejected them? How many would be alive and have fulfilled dreams if we had but extended a helping hand? Can we look at ourselves in the mirror as a nation knowing hundreds - if not thousands - died because we chose not to help them? Are a few bad apples justification for this course of action? There is the very real possible that those already in the US Refugee Admission Program may be consigned to the back of the line and have to begin the whole process over. 50,000 was chosen as an acceptable number, but this arbitrary amount leaves out many others who deserve to be here just as much as anyone. We have to seriously consider the worth of each and every individual who is in Syria and does that person’s life matter less than another’s. And if we won’t do something about it - when we have so much we can do - who will?
In conclusion I want to share some of my favorite verses. In the Book of Mormon there is a king that once said, “Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just— But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; For behold, are we not all beggars?” Before we judge or condemn or do nothing, perhaps it is best we show love to those of our brothers and sisters who stand in need.
0 comments :