Syrian Refugees

Depending on the news of the day, I will scroll through my Facebook feed to find good articles people post.  Invariably, people will post articles that agree with their perceptions of events, but that is good.  My news feed becomes a news aggregator – my own personal Drudge Report (but inclusive of liberal articles as well).

Every so often, there is a universality of uselessness in the articles people post and surface on my newsfeed.  Articles heavy on opinion as well as cherry-picked facts – facts only shared to support the heavy opinionating.  Not interested in those.

The first article I spotted that had useful information in it was here (additional primary sources derived from the article: this and this), indicating that 4 out of 5 migrants pouring into Europe were NOT from Syria.  Hmmmmm….

Then followed a long period of unproductive reading for me.  I eventually spotted this from Senator Carper, which, interestingly, rung my bell a bit.  I had, for a long time, been casually reading through various news sources (to include the aggregator of Facebook) to find source material that would help me formulate an opinion on the topic dominating my Facebook feed, and was reminded by the good Senator that maybe I should be looking to scriptural sources for guidance (to be sure, others, including my own church leaders, had suggested the same.  But, I learned long ago, that sometimes, you gotta hear it from someone else.  One’s mind isn’t always open sufficiently to hear things from the “usual suspects”.  Someone that you don’t expect it from – like a politician – can sorta smack on you the back of the head and get your attention.  Senator Carper’s statement had that effect on me.)

What I liked about Senator Carper’s statement was not only that it assisted in reorienting my thinking on the issue, but it also, for the first time in my recent reading, actually provided useful information on the refugee process.

This was further expanded on during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (HSGAC) hearing held on this topic the other day.  It’s a long hearing, but tremendously informative.  A grown up conversation held by grown ups.  A few nuggets I pulled from it:

• Senator Carper’s statement that there’s a long process by which someone can obtain refugee status from the US;
• There is, indeed, not a lot of intel available to validate claims of applicants from Syria;
• If there isn’t sufficient information available to validate claims of applicants, the process will kick that applicant out of the candidate pool.
• The bill passed by the House to address this issue does little more than to require that relevant federal agencies “certify” that the process already in place for screening a refugee applicant is adhered to (a reporting requirement)
• As I wrote to a friend earlier, the bill was written to give the finger to the President and express Congress’s lack of faith in his Administration to administrate important things correctly; the President’s veto threat is a finger back at Congress for meddling in things that, technically, don’t need* meddling (since there’s already a screening process in place); and the House’s passage by overwhelming bipartisan numbers is an acknowledgement by Congress that the voters are jittery about this issue.
• *I say don’t “need” meddling because the bill doesn’t actually propose to change anything in the actual process that evaluates a refugee applicant.  The applicant doesn’t have to go through a single step more than if the bill were never passed.  So, if Congress didn’t see fit to change the actual process – other than adding a lame reporting requirement – then, Congress doesn’t think the process  “needs” meddling.
• The news coverage on this bill, and claims by all parties as to what this bill does and doesn’t do is abhorrent.  The bill is 5 pages long – in the GPO print format. Which means it’s actually 1 page long in normal single-space type.  Read the bill and you’ll know that Congress did NOT “close the door” on refugees.  They didn’t impeded refugees in the slightest way.  They just required the President to certify that his agencies followed the existing process.
• The Administration’s lead witness in the hearing indicated that the House bill “doesn’t really add anything” to the process. 

So, this is all useful information to me. 

Returning to the admonition of many to use the Holy Word for guidance on how to approach this issue, it must be said that I can find 10 references in the scriptures to support embracing the refugees, and 10 references in the scriptures to oppose it.  The scriptures are a spiritual guide.  And matters of the spirit can only be understood with the companionship of the Holy Spirit.  So, while the scriptures have many practical do’s and don’ts, it is not a step-by-step in all things – at least, not the New Testament which contains the “higher law” the Savior ushered in.  Further, it is my belief that the Holy Spirit only communicates direction to us when we are willing, before receiving His guidance, to accept and act on whatever direction He gives us.

(Sorry for the gospel doctrine according to Krikava, but I’m explaining how I came to my conclusions on this issue – not necessarily how you will come to yours.)

So, with the scriptures as a starting point, I feel compelled (or inclined) to be helpful to the refugees.  Matthew 25:38 gives me a starting point, as it seemeth good and applicable.  I want to help.  But the help I want to offer then must be mitigated against the risk that is most certainly out there.  That’s what the refugee application, review, and analysis process is for.  That mitigates risk.  One can never mitigate all risk away.  Just as I can never (nor would I ever accept) all mitigation measures to protect me from the risks associated with flying on commercial airlines, I must be able to admit that there is a certain amount of risk I am willing to accept if I want to adhere with my starting point of wanting to help.

Incidentally, I think the risk associated with refugees coming is less about the possibility that there may be lunatics among them; but, rather, that they will bring with them an utter lack of understanding of the Rule of Law.  Not understanding or adhering to the Rule of Law – by either immigrants or citizens – is the great threat to our Republic.  But that’s a topic for another time.

So, I support bringing in Syrian refugees (and refugees from other areas).  I support fully implementing the background checking measures we have in place.  Once they’re in, it is our job to love them, support them, cultivate them (e.g. help them understand the Rule of Law), and show them what being an American is all about: working hard, playing by the rules (Rule of Law), and loving your neighbor.

We are NOT to harass them, drive them out or our communities or states, or slap a scarlet letter on their chests.

That’s how I feel, and why I feel the way I do.

The Case for Chris Christie

The other day, while walking into the community center to vote, a couple of folks (one Republican and one Democrat) struck me up for a conversation.  While having a good natured chat about the local items on the ballot, the Democrat asked me who, among the current bunch running for the Republican nomination for President, I favor.

Interestingly, no one had asked me yet, so I hadn’t been forced to really think about it too much.  But, standing there, on the spot, I began to speak/think out loud.  It went something like this:

Well, I guess I could split the bunch into 3 categories: 1) The Outsiders, who are currently doing well in the polls (Carson, Fiorina, and Trump); 2) The Senators (Cruz, Graham, Paul, Rubio, and Santorum; and 3) The Governors (Bush, Christie, Gilmore, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, and Pataki).

Group 1 – The Outsiders: I generally don’t like these folks.  Not because they lack the proper governing philosophy (conservatism to one degree or another), but because they lack governing experience.  It’s easy to claim that career politicians are the blame for the troubles that vex our nation, but that brand of thinking is lazy and faulty.  My response to this thinking is found in my August 9, 2010 blog.  Beyond that, I’ll point to, really, what I think is the best example of why I don’t want a newbee in the White House: President Obama.  Regardless of what you think of his liberal philosophy, he has shown that he can’t administrate himself out of a wet paper bag – let alone manage a ~4.1million person workforce composed largely of people you can’t simply fire (not saying it’s right.  Just saying it is).

So these folks don’t cut it in my book.

Group 2 – The Senators: Similar trouble as the Outsiders.  Managing a staff of 50 (who you can fire for wearing a neck tie that displeases you) isn’t quite the same as managing the aforementioned staff of ~4.1 million.  Being in the Senate can give you some valuable experience in examining the faults and common problems throughout the federal government.  But that can only happen if you’ve been in the Senate for a good chunk of time and bothered to show up to do committee work from time to time (out goes half of this group).  For the two who did spend any time of note in the Senate, conducting oversight and getting to know some parts of the executive branch – for these two in particular, I still don’t know why they’re running.

So these folks largely don’t cut it for me either.

Group 3 – The Governors: For the most part, these folks are approaching the governing philosophy from the right direction, and they have experience to varying degrees running the executive branch of government – at a state level.  So, among these, who catches my attention?

Bush – I have troubles with him not because of him, but because something inside of me doesn’t think it’s good for America to have a 3^rd person from any family as President in such close generational proximity to the others.

Gimore, Huckabee, Jindal, and Pataki – why are they running?

Kasich – Seems to be a fairly decent dude.  Good executive experience at the federal level, as well as in a governor’s mansion.  About as interesting as dish water, but that really shouldn’t be a disqualifier.  I’m not voting for someone based on whether they’d be an interesting person to chat with at the bar.  I want someone who can govern.

Christie – My thoughts on him are based largely on what a deeply entrenched and high ranking Democrat party political operative (who will remain nameless) in New Jersey once confided to me: “that guy can govern.  He’s on the other team, but the state government actually works in New Jersey now.  I’ve never seen anything like it.  He brought in people who know how to manage, and this state is actually functioning properly for the first time in all of my experience.”  This was coming from an absolute political hack who hated admitting anything positive about Christie!

To me, that's much of what a President (Article II of the Constitution) is about – implementing and enforcing laws.  For all of the moaning we have about government bureaucracies, they are simply (for the most part) implementing programs that Congress passed at the behest of their constituents. 

If we’re going to have these departments, agencies, and programs, shouldn’t they at least be properly run?  Once they are truly and properly being operated, then we can have an honest discussion about whether or not some of the programs they are implementing should expire, or be reauthorized by Congress.  Until then, you never really know if the program is lousy because it’s a bad idea, or if it’s lousy because no one bothered to implement it correctly.

This was more or less my thinking-out-loud-answer to the two fellows I was chatting with outside the community center.

Chris Christie is my guy because he’s gotten the begrudging admiration from his (privately) honest adversaries, because he’s conservative (but not a lunatic), because he’s an experienced chief executive of an executive branch of government, and lastly, but not least, he seems awfully genuine.  On that last point, perhaps I'll concede a little bar-stool thinking into my decision making.

Go Governor Christie.  I hope you make it!