Debates about Syrian Refugees and Gun Control in America Demonstrate How Republicans & Democrats Apply Conflicting Reasoning to Political Issues
Originally posted on Thoughts and Musings on Politics and the Universe
The Domestic Threat of ISIS Operatives:
Knowing ISIS operatives are sneaking into European countries with groups of Syrian refugees – and that ISIS has announced their intention to conduct major terrorist attacks on domestic U.S. targets – it stands to reason that the chance of a successful attack on American soil will be increased by bringing Syrian refugees into the country.
If ISIS operatives pass U.S. Department of Homeland Security background checks with false documents, or if Donald Trump’s travel ban is not upheld and extremists enter the country by legal means, we will (albeit by a small percentage) have increased the risk of foreign terrorist attacks in America by opening our doors to Syrian refugees.
Of course, nearly all of the Syrian refugees to whom we would offer asylum are escaping horrific conditions, in dire need of shelter, and present absolutely no threat to any American citizen. It would be the tiniest percentage of refugees allowed into the country who would pose any danger.
The Threat of Domestic Terrorism:
On the flip-side, domestic terrorism continues to be a major concern in America. Opinions about the remedy for this have created a heated political debate about whether enacting gun control measures would effectively reduce domestic terrorism.
Those who advocate for gun control as a means to stop mass shootings by American citizens argue that any step to ensure public safety by limiting access to guns is a step in the right direction, and they actively seek legal measures to ensure public safety under the assumption that reducing access to guns. will reduce domestic terrorism.
Of course, nearly all gun owners in the U.S. are responsible, law-abiding citizens who would never harm another person other than in self-defense.
The Discrepancy:
We can all agree that the vast majority of both groups (Syrian refugees and U.S. gun owners) pose no threat to American citizens – and that there will be “bad guys” who slip through the cracks in both cases. The debate about each issue is based on the manner in which Americans think we should approach the threat.
Ideology generally falls along party lines regarding both gun control and asylum for Syrian refugees, but both political parties’ reasoning behind the first issue conflicts with the reasoning it applies to the other.
Supporters of enacting gun control legislation (mostly Democrats) rely on the same argument as those who oppose offering asylum to refugees (mostly Republicans): enact whatever restrictions it takes to lower the risk of terrorism and/or large-scale attacks on innocent Americans.
Conversely, the argument being used for the refusal of refugees is being used to oppose gun control legislation: the risk of danger is low because the majority of gun owners/Syrian refugees pose no threat. Current safety measures/screening procedures are sufficient.
How does one reconcile being pro-gun control with being pro-refugee when refusing to allow Syrian refugees into our country would clearly lower the risk of dangerous foreign terrorists assimilating into our society within the current legal system (albeit through illegal means)? If one believes in ensuring public safety via taking restrictive steps to control those who might pose a threat to the public with the use of firearms (many of which were acquired by illegal means but purchased within the current legal screening process), why does that argument not also stand true for allowing Syrian refugees onto U.S. soil.
By the same token, how can those who seek a country with minimal regulation and government intervention oppose offering asylum for well-documented, pre-screened, law-abiding humans in crisis?
Reconciliation of these conflicting philosophical applications isn’t likely. But it is food for thought.