Cosmetic bombs and real help

Cosmetic bombs and real help August 9, 2014

I suspect a strong inverse statistical relationship between the “Bomb Iraq!” crowd and those who want to give these refugees the asylum we absolutely *owe* them. The more we want to drop a few bombs–to assuage our conscience that we “did something” before leaving these people to their fate and shrugging “we tried”–the less we want to actually, you know, *do* something to take these people in. 

If (which won’t happen, because he has no intention of helping the people we abandoned in any serious way) Obama were to organize an airlift to get these thousands of people out of harm’s way and give them asylum in the US, I think the same people screaming at kids at the border would be screaming at these people–people for whose predicament we are as responsible as we are for our client states Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Worry not, screamers at children, the Deporter in Chief has no intention of doing much more than cosmetics. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be. And I am afraid because God sees and remembers.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    “people for whose predicament we are as responsible as we are for our client states Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador”

    I actually thought the problems in Central America and their causes were complex and the result of many factors. I could be wrong of course.

    • The problems in Central America have only one cause and one factor- drug abuse in the United States.

      • Dave G.

        Well, yeah. That’s a biggie. Not the only problem I’m sure, but a significant one.

      • Athelstane

        In fairness, these countries weren’t thriving western democracies before the emergence of the American drug culture.

        • They were as thriving as we were at the same time.

          • Athelstane

            In 1950, these countries (Mexico and Central America) were poor, sometimes desperately poor, class ridden corrupt oligarchies ruled by caudillos. Same in 1900. Same in 1850. The U.S., on the other hand was the wealthiest country on the planet, and as democratic as any in existence.

            American drug addictions have done horrific harm to these societies, but these were all dysfunctional societies to begin with, the main saving grace that they were all heavily (and usually, officially) Catholic, albeit often in superficial ways.

            • In the 1850s, even the United States wasn’t wealthy. It took a lot of work to get as wealthy as we are- and we did it by selling our democracy to the highest bidder. I can’t claim that the U.S. is a democracy today; we just have a different sort of oligarchy.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    Actually, I think the people who are angrily opposed to anyone from South of our border would be more welcoming to Mid-eastern refugees. What bothers me are the suggestions floating around that only Christian refugees are welcome, but non-Christian refugees are not. There are Muslims who have died for trying to defend their Christian neighbors and Muslims who are dying because they aren’t “The right type of Muslim” and other minority groups that aren’t either, but they all need help.

  • Mike the Geek

    Personally, I favor both admitting Iraqi Christians as refugees (I’m sure they’d like our Maronite parish) and doing anything within the capabilities of mortal man to render ISIS extinct.
    If the Central American countries are our “client states,” we really should look into getting some new clients. Tonga and Fiji might be good candidates. And Bermuda has suffered far too long under British colonial oppression.

  • I feel the same way about people from Central America, Gaza, and Iraqi non-whatever-sect ISIS is.

    Get them to safety *THEN CORRECT THE PROBLEM*.

  • Jonk

    Why not both?

  • patsw

    We are going to be fighting the battle of Yarmouk, over and over again, until we are utterly destroyed or they are utterly destroyed. Pope St. Pius V, pray for us.

  • Athelstane

    Take all the Christians – all the ones who want to come. Bomb what you need to in order to protect the havens.

    But the thought comes unbidden that their grandchildren will assimilate so well that they’ll be as hedonistic and materialist as the rest of us. An ancient Christian civilization has been destroyed, and it won’t be reconstituted here.

  • Mike Blackadder

    I would find it hard to believe that anyone would question the refugee status of those who could hypothetically be rescued from the mountains of Iraq. Some people who migrate here from Central America are similarly escaping dire peril, though it is also understandable and somewhat expected that some, if not many, of these people may be migrating here in the simple hope of a better life (particularly for their children). It sure seems that this president in particular has promoted that as a possibility for those who migrate to the US without leave of the American government.

    The thing about having a standard for a legal definition like ‘refugee’ and adhering to such a standard is to NOT lump every case together. It is exactly what some conservatives have been arguing; that an irresponsible policy of NOT enforcing borders and being in the midst of a CRISIS with illegal immigration actually comes at the expense of those who are most in peril. It’s an argument about basic fairness, that those who are facing genocide across the world and those who ‘wait in line’ are left in queue as a result of a non-deliberate implementation of humanitarian aid.

    I appreciate the recognition that we are talking in hypotheticals because there will be no suggestion from this president to take in Iraqi Christians (and others facing genocide) despite our direct involvement in the crisis they now face, but that seems to be the more glaring object for criticism. In any case it’s a sad thing that on some level the victims of Iraq have so few friends here either from cold-hearted conservatives who believe we have no obligation to human need outside our borders or from cold-hearted liberals who feign compassion when it wins them votes but will otherwise abide the genocide of Christians across the world rather than admit to the seriousness of radical Islam and legitimacy of fighting back.

  • The Deuce

    I suspect a strong inverse statistical
    relationship between the “Bomb Iraq!” crowd and those who want to give
    these refugees the asylum we absolutely *owe* them.

    Well, that sure comes as a surprise to me, seeing as how I donated money to help those people, and happen to think (in agreement with Pope Francis) that ISIS requires a military response (and bombing them while arming those they seek to eradicate seems like the most effective means to me), and that we should offer them asylum in America.

    In fact, pretty nearly everybody I know who gives a shit about the persecuted Christians and other refugees in Iraq at all are conservatives, and they all think we should give them asylum. Meanwhile, all the liberals I know are ignoring it, or even making excuses for it, the same liberals who prominently displayed their phony bleeding hearts over the Central American refugees.

    Hell, the only people I saw who actually took initiative to help the people coming across the southern border are conservatives as well, who nevertheless (rightly) believe they need to be repatriated for the good of everyone. The liberals merely preened and bloviated about being compassionate and welcoming, and then sent the immigrants elsewhere to be somebody else’s problem.

    I can see why folks on the left need to self-righteously smear and slander us all the time. They need to suppress and deflect the shame they rightly feel.

  • The Deuce

    Now here’s some of that liberal compassion for you: