Imagine that we learn that 1% of the heads of lettuce brought into the USA from Guatemala tested positive for e-coli and reports of people dying were becoming more frequent and the country was becoming alarmed.
If you were President, what would you do?
A) Call Guatemala and ask them nicely to check into it?
B) Tell Americans to be extra vigilant when eating lettuce or
C) Ban all lettuce imports from Guatemala until we could figure out how to eliminate the e-coli or how to sort them before shipping so they never get here?
Ok, seems reasonable right? Lettuce has no feelings and no rights so blocking the import imposes little pain and forces the distributors to help solve the problem.
Are immigrants really that much of a different matter? Do they have rights? Are we obligated to just accept the risks of bad guys coming in because we are dealing with real humans experiencing real pain and many are really at risk even though we know that the bad guys are trying very hard to infiltrate the ranks of those immigrants.
There are multiple issues at play here. We can agree that the refugees from Syria and Africa are genuinely in need of help. We can agree that their home countries are not safe places because of groups like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and ISIS and/or the home country is ruled by dictators who do not protect their citizens. Others are the victims of mother nature in the form of drought, floods etc.
We should also be able to agree that there are those who would seek to infiltrate groups of these refugees in the hopes of getting a free pass into the USA or other "western" nation where they can cause trouble.
So the same question posed in the lettuce analogy is fair here. Because we want to help the 99%, do we take the risk of letting in a few bad guys whose intent is to do us harm? Few of us have much confidence in the Obama administrations ability to vet refugees with current technology and processes. So then the questions stands, if you are uncomfortable letting in the few bad guys, what steps do you take - what is reasonable - to identify the ones that pose less threat? (I don't think you can eliminate all threat unless you just bring in small children.)
Mr Trump has proposed in his typically bombastic manner that we stop all immigration of Muslims. The statement created broad outrage from some and broad support from many. Those opposing it seem to assign racist or bigotry motives and labels to Trump which I don't think is fair. Some of those have not or will not even try to understand his proposal. Is he trying to keep them out permanently or is he expressing concern about bringing in unknown risks.
I think I understand it but I admit, I am reading between the lines and drawing inferences from others who have done the same. I don't think it is racist or bigoted... I think, like the lettuce analogy, he is suggesting that we do not have all the tools in place to vet anyone properly and rather than take the risk of endangering our citizens, we a) hold off on letting anyone in for now, and b) Work quickly and diligently to find a way to sift through the masses with a risk acceptable vetting process. Finally, and I have not heard him say this, but i believe this is a fair approach provided we take steps with others in the international community to find ways to care for refugees in a dignified manner in the meantime.
I save my comments about Trumps approach to illegal immigrants for another post.
