"Fear is easy. Hope is hard."

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.

Do it.

Pass it on.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Related articles

How much of this can be blamed on American policy?

ISIS advancing, refugees increasing and the world awaits a leader

"... something that had to be done, otherwise [the Islamic State forces] could not be stopped."

Comments

[Lands’nGrooves]

Fear is real. Hope is useless against terrorists.

Here’s why we should not allow anymore Syrian refugees after Paris.

1.The Paris attackers were not refugees.

So what. But what they Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees are Muslims also. Muslims equal terrorism. Don’t care if it’s PC, the truth has no agenda.

2.U.S. refugees don’t become terrorists.

Completely false. Proof -http://michellemalkin.com/2015/11/16/a-reminder-of-the-refujihadis-who-have-already-waged-war-on-american-soil/

3.Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the U.S. refugee process.

Who cares whose migration channels are easier or who’s are tougher. This isn’t a contest to see whose better at keeping refugees out of their country. It’s about keeping us all safe. (My post of yesterday addresses the whole vetting, or rather the lack there of, problem.)

4.[Daesh] sees Syrian refugees as traitors.

I could care less what ISIS feels, that doesn’t play any role whatsoever in our policy dealing with ISIS nor refugees. ISIS fighters also look forward to being martyrs so we shouldn’t kill them? That’s childish reasoning.

5.Turning away allies will make us less safe.

What allies, Syria? Confused by that statement.

6. America should demonstrate moral courage.

Moral courage for the sake of demonstrating it while neglecting to keep Americans safe is completely insane.

“If we refuse refugees fleeing this kind of terror and war in their home countries, they are both more likely to die in that violence and, if they survive, more likely to be recruited by Daesh itself.”

That statement alone makes the point, albeit inadvertently, that some of the refugees will be terrorist.

And we should bring in Syrian refugees because that way they won’t be killed in bombing raids? So with that logic we should bring in the whole population of Syria, less the ISIS fighters, who don’t claim they are ISI fighters, so no innocent Syrians civilians are killed?

And then of course is the same ole BS lie that been used since the evil George Bush -if we do “this” and “that” it will “create more terrorists”. So logically only people who have experienced war/conflict/”death form above” become terrorists? Freakin’ hogwash, there too many examples to site of people who never experienced nothing of the sort and yet they become terrorists. Just look at Bin Laden and his henchmen, most came from relatively wealthy and educated backgrounds. Look at those that are leaving Europe and going to join ISIS, they certainly haven’t experienced being bombed or the like.

That doesn’t explain the terrorists who killed Marines in Beirut in 1983, who almost sunk the African embassies bombings, USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, Fort Hood…the countless plots by first generation Americans that have been thwarted…the countless terrorist attacks worldwide by homegrown terrorists…and on and on and on…those Muslims who have arrested in my hometown and yours for sending ISIS money.

That’s nothing but a great sound bite made to influence people’s emotions but has absolutely no bases in reality. Like when our president speaks.

“In fact the current drone war in Afghanistan has killed 90% civilians and only 10% suspected terrorists.”

Based on what? I notice there is no link to back up such a claim. But hey, he wrote it so it must be true.

tim aka The Godless Heathen

[Rick]

tim, not ignoring this, just haven't had the time to give you a proper and full response. Hope to soon. You continue to be appreciated man.

[Rick]

tim, I have some time to come back to this and attempt to respond to your comments.

First, let me say that I have serious problems with the Muslim faith and we can start with the idea that they don't see Jesus Christ to be God. That in and of itself is problematic. But I can't leap to this notion that being a Muslim equates to being a terrorist. The fact is that of the 1.6 billion Muslims that exist in the world, ask skewed at they might be about their religious beliefs from a perspective of my own, the vast majority have nothing to do with terrorism. And you have to understand that vast majority of those victimized by jihadists are actually Muslims themselves. So we disagree and strongly on this notion while I'm sure we agree completely on the idea that radical jihadist Islamists must be defeated.

I also think that the author, though I too wish he'd have supported the opinion with some links, is largely correct about our drone strategies being largely inadequate and too many times off target in the war against Islamists. I found this piece that purports to be quoting documents obtained from intelligence sources that tends to support the author's thesis. Yes, it's from the Huffington Post and so there's that but... it's cause for pause in my view...

In the meantime, I continue to passionately believe that we can fight this enemy, and I mean to the death, and yet still assist mothers and their young children who are doing no more than attempting to flee the very terror we're attempting to protect ourselves from.

[Lands’nGrooves]

"In the 11 nations Pew surveyed alone, the ISIS supporting population would represent 63,399,660 people. That would be a country approximately the size of England, making it the 22nd largest nation in the world."

Read more: http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-war-on-terror-487284/if-isis-supporters-were-a-nation-14148982/#ixzz3sQnDhcgt

tim aka The Godless Heathen