Refutation

Safety over Liberty? Let us refute.

According to Foward.com, the author argues that,

“…radical Islamists in the U.S. have primarily targeted Jews, Christians, homosexuals and other minorities, proper immigration precautions benefit every faith – including Muslims. The 3,000 innocent people murdered by radical Islamists on 9-11 included 31 innocent Muslims (and 300-400 innocent Jews).”

It would be more accurate to say that radical Islamists primarily target random civilians with the purpose of causing as much chaos and destruction as possible.

National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire

“Nearly all of those who perished were civilians with the exceptions of 343 firefighters, 72 law enforcement officers, 55 military personnel, and the 19 terrorists who died in the attacks”

The 19 highjackers who committed the atrocious acts on 9/11 were not refugees and to bring up the events of that fateful day so we can justify a possible unconstitutional travel ban is ludicrous.

“The purpose of Trump’s executive order is to establish a vetting system that protects all Americans from ISIS and other foreign terrorist infiltrators’ attacks. The order explains: “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.”

While the executive order offers good intentions; of course we want to protect all Americans from terrorists attacks, the number of times a foreign national or refugee has executed a successful terrorist attack on US soil can probably be counted on both hands.

The San Bernadino attacks were carried out by US citizens.

The Orlando shooter was a US citizen.

Now one could argue that the Tsarnaev brothers were refugees, but they might have gotten off on a technicality.  Their parents arrived in the US on tourist visas and then later applied for political asylum, where the brothers then entered the US a few years later through the same means.

160301-refugees-calais-terrorists-mdl-904_a417a7420770175b4dc9239cfd90e096.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

(NBCnews.com)

“(For those curious: Asylum seekers apply for refugee status from within the U.S.; refugees seek it from their home countries.)”

One notorious account of an actual refugee committing acts of violence was the recent story of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somalian refugee who injured 11 people at Ohio State University last November.

Now you maybe thinking, AHA!  There’s one.  Yes, there is that one account.  So should we be shaping US law around the one incident a refugee committed an act of violence?

I don’t believe so.  I think the US is more vigilant than that.  We have a terrible amount of gun deaths in the US and yet we stick to our guns.  I can understand the notion that certain terrorist organizations would take advantage of our vetting process to sneak in perpetrators of violence, but like everything else, there’s risk.  We shorten that risk through a thorough vetting process already in place.

If we want to make America great again, let’s show the world how we treat those who need our greatness the most.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s