Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Refugees: a Plea for Compassion
Note: This is directed primarily to Christians. I intended to post this as a comment on another post, but it got too long.
Reading Ricochet, I am occasionally reminded that an American-centered and even conservative worldview is not necessarily synonymous with a Christian worldview. In other words, not every position that might be considered “conservative” – or that is based on the mantra of “America First” – is compatible with a truly Christian worldview, which I consider essential to being right.
There is an enormous, unprecedented refugee crisis in the world today, affecting over 60 million people. In Syria alone, over 11 million out of a population of 22 million have been displaced or killed.
And yet, many professing Christians here in America would rather prioritize their own material comfort and safety, putting up literal and metaphorical walls to keep out these people who are fleeing terrorism. They are seen as a threat and a burden.
This should not be so. Instead, this is an opportunity. An opportunity to carry out Christ’s commands to love our neighbors, especially “the least of these,” and as James said, to minister to widows and orphans, which is essential to true religion. (I am a passionate pro-lifer and we conservatives do a great job on compassionately opposing abortion, but we should also consider how the same principles of compassion, the sanctity of life and the value of every human being, also apply to the refugee crisis). An opportunity to witness to lost souls (many of whom were trapped in repressive regimes with little opportunity to hear the Gospel), and to show the love of Christ to rest of the watching world – how the love of Christ transcends borders and cultures, and casts out fear.
The command to “be not afraid” is one of the most repeated instructions in the Bible. It is certainly legitimate to have concerns and to expect the government to practice prudence. But many of the concerns that have been raised (economic, legal, religious, and security-related) are based on misconceptions, and the fears are overstated.
First, the fact is that the U.S. screening process is one of the strongest in the world – thorough and very strenuous. The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.
No refugee, of the three million admitted through the resettlement program since the late 1970s, has committed an act of terrorism within our borders.
Of the domestic terrorist attacks inspired by extremist Islam since 2001, 70% of them were committed by U.S. citizens. In the same time period, about as many people were killed by white supremacist terror attacks as by radical Islamist attacks, and more were killed by dog attacks.
And even if the concerns and fears weren’t overstated or based on misconceptions, the command would still apply. “Be not afraid”, not because there is nothing to fear, but because God says, “I am with you.”
Putting America first over being disciples of Christ is great folly for Christians. To me, it’s astonishing and sad to see so many putting their own fears ahead of helping those who are desperately in need. Please, open your hearts and have compassion for the strangers.
In the Chronicles of Narnia, Mr. Beaver was asked if the lion Aslan – the Christ-figure of the stories – is safe. He replied, “Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” What’s true of Christ is also true of the Christian life. Safety is fine, and reasonable actions can be taken for protection; but safety can never be the main concern if we are following Christ.
This thought-provoking blogpost by a friend of mine really hits hard:
Published in GeneralIf we truly loved, as Christ loved us, we wouldn’t be arguing about whether or not we should let refugees into our nation. People’s lives are at stake, and we could do something about it. Many of these people aren’t walking in relationship with the Father, and we could show them how.
Instead, we are afraid of losing our freedoms or being blown up in our own land. As “disciples of Christ,” we are arguing over statistic numbers while thousands are ending up dead.
Can you really call yourself a follower of Christ and refuse refugees?
Thanks for the comment. I think we can both help our neighbors here, and selectively welcome some refugees. My concern is that the has been too much emphasis on the former, while the latter has been neglected and/or feared.
Another concern, more specific to Trump’s EO, is that it affects those refugees from the Congo, etc., for no good reason.
“The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.”
Abuse of the proper use of statistics. And the remark about “Christians here in America (who) would rather prioritize their own material comfort and safety” ignores the toxic effect on the whole society of terrorist acts and on having a significant number of people around who would like to murder you for doing something that falls within their definition of blasphemy. See my post Statistical Malpractice, Cluelessness About Humans.
I forgot to add earlier, I agree about the Linda S. person and the hypocrisy of the Women’s March. Appalling.
I respectfully take a different view. In its most simple state, my argument is that people should fix the countries of origin rather than accept refugees. With some exceptions, anyone who qualifies for refugee status is from a country that we fundamentally disagree with. I am not against admitting that there are specific circumstances where some people are genuine refugees particularly where someone has tried to affect political change and been shut down or is of a religious minority in a country that persecutes such minorities.
However, fleeing from war is questionable in my mind as to refugee status. If we take everyone who doesn’t want to fight out of a country, who will be left? The warriors. So, what will be the incentive for those countries to become peaceful? If all the peaceful people have gone, there will be no one left to create the lasting peace that is the only long term solution.
Personally, I do not think that accepting the 100k or whatever number it is each year is a valid solution. America can not accept an large number of refugees (just look at Europe). Do I even need to mention the crime in what where formally very good civilized countries? How many people are born into refugee status each year?
This is not to say that there are not some refugees that we should accept. However, that definition should not be based on UN agencies, but rather a congressional law (which it kind-of is).
And every one of them begins with the warlord Mohammed who subjugated non-believers.
Most people who claim any religion or worldview have only a shallow understanding because they focus more on actions than beliefs. That’s reason to encourage discussions and debates, not to avoid heated arguments and difficult estimations.
Yes, that’s a ridiculous number on it’s face. If we assume they mean “killed by terrorist at any time in their life”, and not just this year, Given that there are only 7 billion people on earth, simple math would tell you that for that statistic to be true on two people now living anywhere on earth could ever be killed by terrorist refugees.
I disagree with the op’s assertion that one cannot put one’s own country first and also be a good Christian. I believe that the nation state is the most compassionate way; without it, all we have is “governance” by global elites. The nation state is one way of keeping power local and more accountable. To say “America first” is not to say “America first last and only”; it just means America first, because you have to put on your own oxygen mask first in order to be able to help others.
Syrian refugees have a horrible track record in Europe. Totally leaving aside concerns about terrorism, many Syrian refugees don’t seem to respect Western laws regarding rape and sexual assault. European leaders have told women to dress more modestly and travel in groups. I wonder, Matt Y, what would you advise women to do under such circumstances?
I have a much different take on this from a Christian perspective. The reason there is such an awful crisis today is because human trafficking is big business and also a great weapon for political and social change. People who are for creating more human trafficking are like people who give change to the homeless. They dole out money to soothe their own selfish needs and call it compassion. They are really doing more harm. If they truely cared, they would be actually doing something more than mere posturing.
I have no idea what to do about immigration. I wish I did.
On one hand, I consider it a human obligation (not just an idiosyncratic Christian idea) to help refugees and immigrants. On the other hand, I consider it a human obligation to protect the ones close to you, and you do that with prudent defensive routines. The situation has mixed motives. To pursue one moral good, we seem to be thwarting another moral good. I can’t see any way to pursue both, although I’m not an expert and I don’t know if there is a happy solution.
The simplistic answer is to choose one moral good and abandon the other. But in my opinion, I think we need to balance those goods, and work both sides of the street. Improve the scrutiny but keep the doors open.
I’m not willing to abandon either good. It’s a conflict, but it’s a conflict I’m willing to put up with until a better answer shows itself. If it means both sides will complain, well, they’re going to do that anyway.
Europe and Syria would both be better off if they had torpedoed the first refugee raft.
I live in cold New England so homelessness is a huge concern to me. I am always grateful for my warm bed, and I wish everyone had one during the winter.
Unfortunately, the shelters are full in Boston at the moment. And the number of teenagers–usually foster care kids who have run away or aged out of the system because at 16 years old, the state as the children’s guardian stops looking for them–is growing daily. The waiting lists for housing assistance–either local or through Section 8–are long, and often it is futile to even sign up. There are approximately 39,000 homeless veterans in this country. And we are on the verge of an affordable housing crisis.
I hope and pray that, between Donald Trump’s real estate background and Ben Carson’s knowledge of the conditions for people living in poverty, there will be a tremendous building boom in affordable housing.
But the fact is that at this moment, the situation is bleak for people already here.
Charity begins at home. I do not want to bring in any more people until the people already here have a decent place to live, a job, and access to healthcare and education. Until then, helping the refugees should be done through our massive foreign aid budgets.
[continued from comment 41]
I think we are hosting a great many immigrants who could go back to their original countries and manage quite well. That might free up our charitable resources to help more refugees.
I would favor doing that.
But until we take that step, I do not want to add any more charity cases to our already burgeoning lists.
As my Catholic Italian mother-in-law used to say, “You’ll be no good to anyone else if you don’t take care of yourself.”
Altruism is not a synonym for masochism. We do not have to play Russian Roulette to express our concern and humanity. Each Somali refugee that has been radicalized in Minnesota requires an FBI team of about 60 people to provide 24/7 surveillance, and there are dozens of them. How many tents, schoolrooms and other aid could be provided in Jordan for what these feel-good policies cost us at home?
It’s interesting to me that at mass today the priest read a letter from our area bishop about immigration and refugees. Though there was a note about the Trump EO, the thrust of the admonition contained therein was a prayer for government to reform US immigration policies to better help those from all over the world who should be treated with human dignity while also acting in a way that keeps Americans safe and independent/sovereign in their own nation.
It came across as quite reasonable.
Therefore I think you must start with the second half of the bishop’s thought and frame the question about refugees this way: How does the US government keep Americans safe and independent/sovereign while also administering a humane immigration policy?
I don’t know the answer, but I bet far fewer people would object to the question framed in this way.
You make it sound as if death from a terrorist event is pretty remote. But close calls and the ripples which spread out from each terrorist action are what terrorism is all about.
When my son was in Kuwait waiting to invade Iraq he was almost killed by a Muslim/ American soldier who threw a couple of grenades into an officer’s tent and then shot those who ran out of the tent. Sure only one person was killed and sixteen injured but the terror of that event was throughout the entire invasion force.
My Father and brother were in the train behind the 7/7 London bombers. Yes, only fifty-two were killed and five hundred injured, but the terror affected the whole country.
After the Fort Hood massacre you can be pretty sure every disarmed soldier on every military base felt vulnerable.
When the IRA was bombing in England my mother never knew if I and my siblings would come home from school.
Terror terrorises, and stupid statistics like those quoted are utterly meaningless.
Matt – thanks for your heartfelt post. I think that Christians and most western countries have taken in or given care to millions of refugees for a long time – most certainly recently. At the same time, there are evil regimes who are beheading and slaughtering not only Christians, but Muslims, trafficking women and girls as slaves, destroying landmarks from many religions thousands of years old. Missionaries and clergy have been on the front lines with refugees. Banning people from countries who sponsor terror, as in fund, support, and care nothing for their citizens’ freedom, are a beginning – to get Muslim countries and the world to pressure a change. These countries want you to take their citizens in while they allow their homelands to be destroyed. I think many have done and continue to do all they can.
There is nobody who is credible enough, or trustworthy enough to administer it.
Nobody is a pretty big word and pretty hopeless.
I know very few people who don’t believe our immigration system has some major problems that need to be tackled even while they have different thoughts about the how.
Anyway, the debate should be had, and it must be had at some point for the good of this country, I think.
That said, the debate must include a dialogue… And it must be had in good faith. One cannot start with “that’s not a Christian position,” though I am sure the opinion writer here did not mean to be attacking or alienating.
The Great Commission says to go out into the world.
In this sad world, there’s probably a couple of hundred million people living in lousy conditions.
Where would you draw the limit?
This gave me whiplash.
Then I saw it got a bunch of likes and now I’m depressed.
Think about it this way; God gave the nation-state authority to do 2 primary tasks; to restrain evil (largely via the justice system) and promote a tolerable social order (in other words, no anarchy). When we see the nation-state as a tool to fix social problems, the law of unintended consequences kicks in like a mule.
Biblical exhortations are (mostly) toward the Church, individually and collectively. It seems to me most effective to support indigenous Christian ministries in various nations with missions, with resource, with teaching, with prayer. It isn’t the nation-state’s job to fix Syria’s refugee crisis in order to salve our consciences.
Another way to think about it; should Israeli Christians encourage massive refugee resettlement from Arab lands to Israel? The Israeli state would rightfully say that such a policy would so fundamentally undermine the society that it would pose an immediate danger to Jewish state.
Here’s a thought experiment. It was prompted by an experience I had many years ago. I was at a seminar in Belgium, and the same presenter was also teaching the following week in Germany. A colleague from the first seminar offered to drive me part way and put me up at her parents’ house. I could then take the train the rest of the way the following day. I agreed.
Her mother had grown up in what became East Germany. Her maternal grandfather was an officer in a German unit; I don’t think he was SS, but beyond that, if I ever knew I don’t remember.
Her mother remembered fleeing the oncoming Russians and making a river crossing under Russian fire as they tried to make it into territory held by the US or the British. Her memory of her fear of the Russians was palpable as she recounted this. I think her father had been a Russian prisoner, had survived and had been repatriated in the early 1950s; IIRC my colleague’s father had been in the Hitler Youth.
OK. My colleague’s mother and grandmother were not war criminals. They had a well founded fear of rape and death if they fell into Russian hands. Real refugees. Today, there would be pressure to take them into the U.S. What about my colleague’s grandfather? suppose he had been SS? Suppose instead of being captured, he had managed to flee west too?
Suppose we bring the women into the U.S., and he later wants to join them under family reunification?
We’d have had a much better chance of vetting him than we do of vetting someone from Syria. We don’t want AQ. Or Nusra. Or Hizbollah. Or the Revolutionary Guard here in the US even if they were running from Assad.
Say we have a moral obligation to help. Are we obligated to help in the U.S.?
I appreciate the post Matt. Not an easy stand to take. Even though it’s not really central, I’m curious as to where this came from. I admit to being somewhat skeptical.
I don’t disagree that it is hopeless, I do not believe, nor do I believe a rational case can be made, that any law or system we pass or create will be faithfully executed over any significant period of time.
And the problem of impasse?
Alright. Then what would you propose? Leaving the system exactly as it is? Doing nothing? What is your solution?
To be at an impasse is to have a position that is counter to someone else’s. So you have to start by articulating your solution.
There is no acceptable solution. Its hopeless.
Nothing we do or say matters. There is no deal that will be honored. No law will be faithfully executed.
Its a fools errand to even bother trying to craft a mutually agreeable solution, even if one could be even found.
It comes from the book Seeking Refuge: On the Shores of the Global Refugee Crisis, by Issam Smeir, Matthew Soerens, and Stephan Bauman of World Relief, published by Moody. There are references for their sources, but I don’t have the book in hand at the moment.