Skip to content

Teen author Stone Erickson suggests America is hypocritical in its anti-immigrant sentiment

stonemims9

Stone Erickson (Photo credit: Adam Higgins)

Recently, the United States government has come across a very interesting moral dilemma that has captivated not only Americans, but the world as a whole. This news shouldn’t be shocking, the actions of the only remaining true superpower of the world should garner a certain degree of attention. The question at hand involves thousands of Syrian immigrants who need a home but have no such place to call upon and whether we should allow them to cross our borders.

There are dozens of arguments for and against this action, so many in fact that they cannot be summed within one article, however there are important points that do indeed need to be elaborated upon. The first of many arguments against allowing these refugees sanctuary within the United States is that the Syrians are geographically located in an area where ISIS has been active and therefore the refugees that we allow into our country could be terrorists.

At first glance, we could stipulate that this line of thinking is just. After all, we as a country have a moral obligation toward our own citizens before any immigrant. However, when this problem is gazed at with a more analytical paradigm it is easy to find ethical injustices and fallacies within the argument. As a country that is supposed to perpetuate the idea of democracy and freedom, it would be grossly hypocritical for us to take preemptive action against an entire ethnicity of people due to the actions of the minority. We have been guilty of this crime far too often and it would not be wise for us to entertain this idea any longer.

In fact, many researchers of the subject of global terrorism agree that our past malevolent treatment of people in the MIddle East has actually led to an increase in recruitment by stated terrorist. It’s no secret that relations between the United States and the Middle East have been strained for years, partly because of the supposed “War on terror” by the United States which many have postulated is more like a war on Muslims and partly because of our irrational fear of all that isn’t Western.  The propagation of these beliefs has led these terrorist groups to advertise Muslim mistreatment to the populace and become more popular than they would have been without our actions. We can extrapolate that by denying the Syrian people the humanitarian aid that they desperately need we could actually be funding ISIS indirectly.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only argument that stands in the way of refugee legislation. Questions of spacing and economical disadvantages still plague this dilemma preventing us from making anything more than astute observations on the matter. So what do we do? Do we allow ourselves to turn our backs on these potential immigrants because of our irrational fears and meaningless hearsay or do we open ourselves up to the possibility of loss that we ourselves have no way of predicting? I have my opinions. Do you?