Ann Sterzinger writes: There’s a lot of raspberrying and dismissiveness in the debate over whether to let the wave of “Syrian” “refugees” wash up on U.S. shores. In the partisan sandbox-fights to which we tend to reduce even the most serious questions, it’s easy to forget that in a case like this, there is probably a strong moral argument to be made on either side.
And while I ultimately come down on the side of “Get these nutjobs far, far away from me!”—I continue to subscribe to the Daffy Duck school of pain—each argument in a case like this suffers greatly when it dismisses the opposition out of hand.
By now we’ve all heard the loudest argument for opening the gates: Barack Obama’s snide little speech in which he informed the GOP that they’re crybullies to sound the tocsin over a pack of harmless widows and orphans. (They may well be crybullies, but not for that.) Never mind that many of the terrorists who have been rocking European civilization are second- or third-generation immigrants.
This isn’t the first time Obama has ridden his love-unicorn roughshod over the realities of what Muslims themselves actually think and believe. In his 2009 must-read summary, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, Robert Spencer describes how in a 2009 speech Obama “proved” the peacefulness of Islam by cherry-picking a few peaceful-sounding phrases from a Koran passage that’s mostly about violence:
Obama cited verse 5:32: “The Holy Koran,” said the President, “teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This sounds peaceful enough, but Obama studiously ignored the next verse (5:33), which mandates punishment for those whom Muslims do not regard as “innocent”—punishments including crucifixion or amputation of a hand and a foot for those who fight against Allah and Muhammad.
The “peace” that Islam promises is less like unicorn turds and more like a Muslim Pax Romana: we’ll have peace when everyone else is subjugated.
To be fair to this side of the question as a whole, however, one must remark that the welcome-wagon-in-chief has hamstrung himself in his ability to present the case. He’s stuck repeating the weakest arguments—twisting scripture and screeching “Let’s be nice!”—because, if he were to present the best argument for his side, he would have to draw attention to his own foreign policy.
To wit: while American taxpayers do not owe every foreign human being on Earth an apartment and a welfare check, it could certainly be argued that we have some moral responsibility to open our doors to people whose countries we’ve bombed the shit out of, particularly in proxy wars. (I still hold that it’s valid to bomb ISIS wherever they are on Earth, since we’re for all intents and purposes at war with that entity; but playing chicken with the Russians over Syria’s civil war? Not so much.)
However, though this argument is perfectly valid, it is trumped by two equally moral counterarguments.
First, fewer and fewer Americans want anything to do with being the world’s damn policeman anymore. But who listens to the serfs who foot the bill? I’m not willing to be dismembered in my hometown because my government keeps pretending to the rest of the world that we’re a democracy.
Second, however many stupid things our government might have done in the past, that doesn’t override our imperative to steer it to the right course whenever we see a possibility for doing so.
And d’ya know what is always the right thing for a government to do? Protecting its own citizens.
I said it about Gee-dub when he sent young men to die to avenge his father, and I’m saying it about Obama as he prepares to sacrifice his civilians so he can look charitable on the world stage: Could you at least pretend to give a shit about your subjects?
A government that doesn’t care about the lives of foreign citizens is bad, but considering the overall history of the world, it’s not particularly bad; you could even say it represents a normative dose of human evil.
But a government that’s just as glib about its own citizens’ lives is completely psychotic.
Clearly, we need to quit killing Muslims abroad, even if we think we’re doing them some sort of twisted favor; if they want to pretend it’s 700 A.D., that’s their problem. (I’ve argued elsewhere that Islamists would want to kill us even if we weren’t bombing them; as Spencer says, “[Obama] doesn’t seem to have considered that if the Koran mandates jihad against non-Muslims, displays of U.S. goodwill are unlikely to have much effect.” But even if you threw out the ethical question, this is clearly a case of “better safe than sorry” . . . and in case you hadn’t noticed, these wars have nuked the federal budget.)
But if we can’t do that, at least we need to quit importing people who hate us.
