In the past weeks after the new President's (sigh) changes or attempted changes to immigration policy, there have been quite a few takes on what this means for security. Perhaps this is due to the fact that security is the motivation for the changes.
Here are a few examples:
Portlandia chimed in:
Meanwhile Matt Wuerker used the opportunity to re-share a cartoon:
And Angelina Jolie wrote added this logic to the articles in the New York Times:
And in fact only a minuscule fraction — less than 1 percent — of all refugees in the world are ever resettled in the United States or any other country. There are more than 65 million refugees and displaced people worldwide. Nine out of 10 refugees live in poor and middle-income countries, not in rich Western nations. There are 2.8 million Syrian refugees in Turkey alone. Only about 18,000 Syrians have been resettled in America since 2011.
This disparity points to another, more sobering reality. If we send a message that it is acceptable to close the door to refugees, or to discriminate among them on the basis of religion, we are playing with fire. We are lighting a fuse that will burn across continents, inviting the very instability we seek to protect ourselves against.
Before addressing the new concerns, it's important to recall that the existing elephant in the room remains Islamist motivations for 9/11. The stated motivation that were taken at face value by many western 'progressives' was essentially revenge for American support of Israel and India in various conflicts, sanctions of Iraq, and maintaining a military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Since 9/11, the motivations for Islamist attacks have said to be all kinds of different things. Many of the attacks, such as the violence from Nidal Hasan, are often thought of as a sort of revenge for American military response to 9/11. As if the attacks were a sort of secular objection to drone strikes.
The stated motivations for Islamist attacks are further confused as the November 2015 Bataclan attack was said to be in defense of ISIS in particular and a response to the west's "perverted" culture. Early reports of the Benghazi attack was that it was another response to an anti-Islam YouTube video. Then, the Charlie Hebdo shooting clearly had no other motivation other than being mad at cartoonists that had 'insulted' Muhammad.
In light of the most recent security calculus made by liberal thinkers, it is time to restate all the reasons that muslims may attack western cities:
- Revenge for diplomatic and financial support of Israel
- Revenge for military action in countries they've never lived in
- Revenge for "political intervention" in countries that the west may have economic ties with
- Revenge for YouTube videos they don't like
- Revenge for depictions of Muhammad
- Radicalization caused by having to live in a failed state as they were denied residency in a western country
The last idea, that muslims will radicalize if not given asylum, is especially absurd as there actually very little correlation between violence/poverty and terrorism. The Islamists attacking the west have largely not been victims of drone strikes, the 'failures of capitalism', or a unforgiving immigration system.
Islamist terrorists are more often than not the receivers of the blessings of visas, expensive education, and citizenship. It's not true that terrorists are created by refugee camps and bomb craters. Terrorists are created by engineering degrees, asylum status and being exposed to low-wage labour in decadent western cities.
Starbucks' stated plan to hire 10,000 refugees is a seemingly noble gesture, but it doesn't change the mechanics of a muslim man being emasculated by having to don a green apron, 37 tchotchkes and dispense caffeinated sludge to smug millennials in Uggs.
Any well-read "feminist" that understands the concepts of "toxic masculinity" and "emotional labour" should have enough time for a second thought about muslim male refugees, as Canada did when it excluded single men. This is also something Sweden and Finland are dealing with as muslim men arrive or return from an "extended holiday" in the mid-east.
The conclusion of the "liberal" narratives is an immense feeling of being held hostage to satisfying the desires of muslims that may be set off by an ever growing list of claimed western misdeeds. The comedy in it is that many college-educated people in the west that wouldn't let a fraternity brother mix a rum and coke on their behalf are not at all concerned with tens of thousands brothers from the "ummah" becoming their next Craigslist roommate. Contemporary messages tell us that men graduating from 12 years in western schools still need a campus "rape culture" seminar before being safe human beings, while muslim men from war-torn areas qualify as "extremely vetted" upstanding citizens after a few rounds of interviews with border bureaucrats. And even after all this propagandizing, as Angelina Jolie points out, the most liberal plan for resettlement would only be a pathetic fraction of a problem that is over 65 million in size.
The level of obfuscation of the issue cannot be underestimated, as even "reputable" outlets like CNN choose to even split hairs about the word "refugee" to further a narrative. For example, most Americans likely think of "refugee" as meaning anyone in the United States that is granted residency for the sake of "refuge". That is, "refugees" are simply everyone that is not in the United States to work or reunite a family. "Refugees" are simply everyone that faces danger upon return.
CNN, on the other hand, chooses to define "refugee" as different than "political asylum", a game of semantics that is only made for the benefit of the Boston bombers. In fact the Tsarnaevs are undeniably 'refugees' to any rational person that is not sexually aroused by legal dictionaries.
The reality is that nobody trusts Muslims and much of this fear was ironically created by fawning liberal defenses of Islamic identity that portray the muslim world as one insane powderkeg that no one should ever be returned to. Trump properties have made a gaudy mess of some neighbourhoods, while Islam has made a medieval disaster of a serious chunk of several continents. Is it any wonder of that distrust of muslims outweighs distrust of Trump? The mess begins.
As everyone likes to feel good about themselves anyways, let's end this with an inclusive, inspiring message.