“…Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. Even beautiful babies were murdered in this very barbaric attack.” [1]
Perhaps they wouldn’t be so helpless if the United States bothered to help.
After the attack on Syria last evening, it’s only natural for the media to be in a bit of a scramble. What is going to happen to relations with Syria? Why is America putting so much on the line for another conflict in the Middle East? How will other nations view this attack? But perhaps America ought to also be concerned over just how hypocritical we now appear. While Trump claims to have been emotionally moved by the news of Assad’s nerve agent attack on Syrian civilians[2], there has been no drastic reform to the changes imposed on immigration and deportation laws by the Trump administration.
Let’s take a moment here and think about exactly what this means on a global scale: the United States would rather approach the situation violently and bomb another nation for the aggressions on their own people rather than peacefully accepting the refugees who are fleeing for their lives to escape preexisting violence in their own homeland.
Even better, the massive deportation effort in America is still ongoing, and Trump is still pushing for his nationwide expedited removal.[3] Not only are the doors closed on refugees trying to make a new life for themselves away from the violence they experience in their home country, the United States is also still trying to send them en masse back to where they had originally escaped from.
Those same “beautiful babies” and “helpless men, women and children” Trump described as victims are being victimized by the United States as well. All of the arguments in the past, such as claiming that immigrants will take American jobs (addressed previously in my blog post here) or might even be terrorists (also addressed in this blog post) weaken America even further now. The United States is a country willing to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syria due to the cruelty and injustices committed against Syrian peoples, but we’re still convinced that refugees from Syria are dangerous to American lives and jobs?
It also makes the United States seem indecisive. We launch missiles on Syria, but we don’t accept their refugees. Can we say that we support the protection and well-being of Syrian civilians if we don’t even let them in, or boot them out of our country at the drop of a hat?
Immigration has a major impact on America, yes, but not for the arguments usually given about the effects it could have on the economy or public safety. The United States’ stance on immigration and deportation is now defining the nation in as a whole rather than just in regards to foreign policy. Is America the kind of country that will sit back and only defend those seeking help so long as there is an ocean between us and any real impact?
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/donald-trump-launches-us-air-strikes-against-assad-regime-syria/
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/opinions/purpose-us-strike-miller-sokolsky/
[3] https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/graphics/deportation-explainer/
Right, I feel like this is just an effort to popularize his nationalist agenda. War is a great way for him to seem more rational, oddly enough. Anyways, he’ll probably be able advance more policies on the homefront with the excuse that it is for “security.” Deportation in the name of “security” seems extremely narrow-minded to me.
I understand your analysis about the United States’ current position. Under Trump’s administration, it seems confusing whether or not President Trump is really trying to help Syria. From first banning refugees, to sending military, to attacking, to saying we need to help by attacking? It’s very confusing. I hope our government finds and iterate to us a clear way of how we can help soon.
yes!! I agree completely with you. There is a very clear contradiction here that Trump has just completely avoided these past few days by not acknowledging our current immigration policy towards Syria. However, I am glad I think that the US did something to help the rebel’s cause in Syria. I still have not made up my mind on whether missile strikes was the best answer.
I think your passion for this subject is grossly clouding your judgement. It is not hypocritical in the slightest bit to decide that we do not want to take on thousands of immigrants, but to try to protect them in their homeland. The United States would never be able to sufficiently shelter all of those that want to escape Syria. Let’s do an actual service to the people of Syria, and punish their government for what they are doing to their people. Let’s help the people of Syria in their HOMELAND, so that they we can help fix the problem and they can stay in their home instead of just moving. Why do you feel it is the role of the United States to shelter all of the world’s people, on top of everything we do to already help protect them?