Select Page

Should the U.S. Take Syrian Refugees? Trump, Kerry, Walker, O'Malley

Should the U.S. Take Syrian Refugees?  Trump, Kerry, Walker, O'Malley

The civil war in Syria continues to rage, almost half of its citizen’s have been displaced.  Out of a population of about 23 million, 4 million have left Syria.  Some of the surrounding countries have allowed mass quantities, the international community is obliged to help refugees.  

We recent wrote how over 4000 Islamic extremists have been smuggled into Europe and granted refugee status.  So this is a dangerous business.  However so many Syrians are crowded into refugee camps in the middle of nowhere, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) has neither the funds nor the organization to take care of this many people.  

Should the U.S. step in an allow Syrian Refugees to enter?

Presidential Candidate and Billionaire Donald Trump says, in short, “You have to.”  

Further, “I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, with what’s happening, you have to.  This was started by President Obama when he didn’t go in and do the job he should have when he drew the line in the sand, which turned out to be a very artificial line. But you know, it’s a living in hell in Syria. There’s no question about it. They’re living in hell, and something has to be done.”

Secretary of State John Kerry says we are already committed to taking more.

Presidential Candidate Scott Walker says, “No, we shouldn’t be taking on any more Syrian refugees right now. In the last year, America has received almost 70,000 refugees of which nearly 2,000 are from Syria. We’ve spent something like $4 billion in humanitarian relief in terms of helping the situation in Syria.”

Democratic Candidate and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley says “Lady Liberty should open arms to Syrian refugees.”

Author’s note:  While I certainly feel compassion for those who have been displaced, admission to the U.S. as refugees with what could turn into a permanent residence is not a good precedent, given the propensity for extremist groups to use this to infiltrate trained terrorists into our society.

We must be careful. Better to contribute funds to the refugee camps to make sure they do not starve, with the intention of repatriating them to Syria with the war is over.

In the longer term, the population in the Middle East is expanding rapidly and stability is never assured.  New wars will come about and massive populations will be moved. If we set the wrong precedent, these massive populations will cry loudly if we don’t allow any into the U.S.  It will be impossible to turn them down and impossible to accommodate them in the United States without creating a “country within a country” of people who do not speak English and do not understand our culture, which could easily bring war upon ourselves.

My two cents.

 

About The Author

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *