Edward J. Erler is professor emeritus of political
science at California State University, San Bernardino. He earned his
B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government
from the Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles
on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights
from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision
Commission in 1996. He is the author of The American Polity and co‑author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration. This fall he is a visiting distinguished professor of politics at Hillsdale College.
**************************************
The
following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on
October 12, 2016, sponsored by the Van Andel Graduate School of
Statesmanship and Pi Sigma Alpha.
Nothing has provoked the ire of America’s bipartisan political class
as much as Donald Trump’s recent proposal that the U.S. should suspend
the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other terrorist-supporting
nations until we find a way of perfecting the screening process to
ensure that we are not admitting terrorists or terror sympathizers. On
its face this proposal was not unreasonable.
Most of these refugees do
not have adequate documentation, intelligence agencies do not have
sufficient information to determine whether or not they have terrorist
connections or intend to engage in terrorism, and the heads of our
security agencies have warned that active terrorists will inevitably
slip through security screening cracks. Nor is it as if there was no
reasonable alternative. Wouldn’t it have been better, as Trump and
others have suggested, to address the refugee crisis by setting up
security zones in Syria or other Middle Eastern countries where refugees
could find safety and where Muslim nations might feel obligated to help
finance their care? In addition to making sense from a national
security perspective, this would also have been a more humane solution,
since it would not have uprooted the refugees from their homelands and
injected them into an alien way of life.
Why are our political leaders, despite these facts, willing to expose
the nation to such potential danger?—a danger that is surely greater
than we now imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment