The mantra coming from some circles today is that if you're one who thinks the prudent taking in of Syrian refugees (particularly women and children) is a good thing, then you must be a leftist, an Obama shill, a dolt, or much worse.
So it was refreshing this morning to come across this piece by Matthew DesOrmeaux over at United Liberty that actually enumerates some of the good that might just come... one or two of which I had not particularly considered:
As a timely post at the libertarian Niskanen Center makes crystal clear, there are several good reasons that the US should continue accepting refugees and not abandon desperate, hopeless people because of fear.
1. The Paris attackers were not refugees. [ed: additional link added]
2. U.S. refugees don’t become terrorists.
3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the U.S. refugee process.
4. [Daesh] sees Syrian refugees as traitors.
5. Turning away allies will make us less safe.
6. America should demonstrate moral courage.
Those are all very good reasons, backed up with significant historical data. I encourage everyone to read the entire post. It addresses most of the arguments against refugee intake that I’ve seen over the last few days.
But there are at least two additional, equally important reasons we shouldn’t shut our doors to refugees of Islamist violence.
Numbers 3, 4 and 6 particularly ring true for me but it's the two additional ones and especially the last one that I consider to be exceptional food for thought.
And of course, his concluding statement is worth the link click.
Pass it on.
Crossposted at Wizbang.