In all honesty I can't decide which is the right call.
On one hand banning the refugees will alienate that nation and may well drive other members of that country into the arms of fanaticism while allowing some of its more rational occupants to be destroyed thanks to turning them away.
On the other hand if we accept them when theres a clear tone of fanaticism in that countries national identity right now then it could actually begin to seep into the US over the next 30-40 years and make homegrown terrorism more likely just like in the UK. Not only that if we are accepting the rational Syrians then who is left to counter the irrational ones?
It doesn't seem like either one is a solution. The opposition to the fanaticism needs to be empowered, not hidden away.
On one hand banning the refugees will alienate that nation and may well drive other members of that country into the arms of fanaticism while allowing some of its more rational occupants to be destroyed thanks to turning them away.
On the other hand if we accept them when theres a clear tone of fanaticism in that countries national identity right now then it could actually begin to seep into the US over the next 30-40 years and make homegrown terrorism more likely just like in the UK. Not only that if we are accepting the rational Syrians then who is left to counter the irrational ones?
It doesn't seem like either one is a solution. The opposition to the fanaticism needs to be empowered, not hidden away.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.
