Immigration has been a contentious topic for a while, but now that President Trump has enacted a travel ban on countries that have strong links to terrorism, it has become front-page news. Many people are fearful of Trump’s plan. Firstly, American is a nation of immigrants, and closing off our borders is in direct conflict with who we are as a nation. Secondly, many believe that a travel ban will not actually stop terrorists from gaining entry. Lastly, there are more terror attacks by citizens of the United States than by foreigners. While these arguments all have merit, they also conveniently omit many pressing facts, and present very grave moral quandaries.
It only takes one
Donald Trump Jr. came under some intense fire for posting a picture of a bowl of Skittles that read: “If only three of these Skittles were poisonous, would you eat a handful?” His point was that while the vast majority of immigrants are peaceful, a small amount of them are not. Terrorists and those who will not assimilate into american culture can sneak in under the guise of being a refugee.
The first and only role of the American federal government is to protect its citizens. That’s it. The problem is, if one bad Skittle makes its way in among 1,000 safe Skittles, the government has failed. Many will say that our job is to protect human life regardless of who it is, but this is in direct conflict with the role of the government.
Many say that they would gladly eat the poisonous Skittles if it meant providing a safe place for the safe ones. Many people find this sentiment to be brave and noble, but it it is rather arrogant. It is extremely selfish to make that decision because while one person might be okay taking that risk, they are making that decision for everyone. If they are wrong and one bad Skittle comes through the gate, they are now responsible for the injury or death of multiple people.
One prominent example is the the San Bernardino shooter, who was in the U.S. legally on a visa. Not to mention the 9/11 terrorists were also all here legally. I would challenge supporters of mass immigration to look in the eyes of the victim’s mothers and tell them that granting those visas was worth it. Do you think the parents of those victims would still grant a thousand visas if only one of those visas resulted in the death of their children? What about if it killed 21 members of their community, or 3000? I doubt that the victims of immigrant violence would be so keen to swallow that bowl of Skittles.
Strong moral questions raised
Have you ever seen the photos of refugees on boats heading to places like Greece and Turkey? Many of them are heart-wrenching snapshots intended to evoke strong emotions. Go ahead and search on the internet for some of these photos, and then answer this question: where are the women?
National Review column “Why so Many of Europe’s Migrants are Men”,states that of 102,753 registered arrivals through Italy and Greece, the International Organization of Migration found that 68,085 were men, with only 13,888 women and 20,780 were children.
If leaving your war torn country is safer than staying in it, then why in the world would you leave your family behind? This is extremely objectionable and morally deplorable. Many of the men are banking on the fact that, according to many European laws, once a migrant gains asylum status, their family can then join them. Europe is already buckling under the weight of this mass influx of refugees. They cannot adequately provide for the amount of refugees as it stands; it will be impossible to take care of all of their families as well.
Help them over there
The U.S. takes in one million legal immigrants a year. However, according to the World Census Bureau, there are over three billion people living at or the below the poverty line. It is arrogant and elitist to think that we are making a true, humanitarian difference in the world overall. According to a demonstration given by Roy Beck, even if we took in two million immigrants a year, which would crumble our support system, we still would not make a noticeable dent in the overall suffering of the worlds most destitute. As Beck puts it, “Immigration will never, ever, be an effective or significant way to deal with the people who are suffering in the world.” We take in one million immigrants a year, while over 80 million are born into poverty each year. immigration absolutely cannot be the answer to that. The most effective solution is to help them – but over there, not here.
Sweden is now considered the “rape capital of the world,” and along with Denmark, boast an 80-100 percent sexual assault rate. UK, France, Germany and Finland report 60 to 79 percent of people as having been sexually assaulted. A lot of this is attributed to the fact that immigrants have vastly different concepts of women and sex which do not blend well with Western values. Most Americans talk about how we don’t have these problems, or how these problems are blown way out of proportion, but the fact is that America has nowhere near the population of immigrants that Europe is dealing with. If you want a true reaction to these problems, it is smart to go to the source, Europe.
Right now, Europe is crumbling and reacting strongly to clashing cultures, and most Europeans want an immigration ban from Muslim majority countries. I should note that the problem is not inherently with citizens born in that country, although there is evidence that citizens become radicalized as well. The real issue is with immigration, not Muslims. It just so happens that many immigrants are Muslims. We must draw a clear distinction between correlation and causation at this point. Again, it isn’t religion that is the problem.
My solution – even with a separation of church and state
Many people on social media have been spewing biblical rhetoric, about how a country that is primarily Christian is called by the Bible to welcome foreigners and the destitute with open arms. These are the same people, however, that vociferously call for a strict separation of church and state.
94 percent of Arab Americans live in metropolitan areas. Los Angeles, Detroit, New York, New Jersey, Chicago and Washington, D.C., are the top five metropolitan areas of Arab American concentration. Coincidentally, these areas quickly turn into slums as large money earners move away. If we want to help assimilation then relegating our immigrants into the darkest corners of society will only breed contempt.
My solution is this: anyone who thinks we should accept immigrants to this country should house them themselves. Just as the Bible calls us to accept these people (Ecc. 4:1), then we should absolutely do it, but on a personal level instead of a governmental level. Every household who wants to accept an immigrant family, once vetted for sustainability and income, should have enough of their taxes returned so that they can support a family of refugees. This will solve many problems, but especially cultural assimilation and the financial burden of supporting these families. Additionally, we will no longer be relegating these people to the city slums. Finally, and most importantly, those who want to participate in welcoming refugees have a personal stake and the ability to do so, while those who want to accept refugees but relegate the burden onto others no longer can.