In a rare foray into the political scene, I have the following thoughts about the recent discussion regarding the refugee crisis.
But first let me back up. If you’ve ever seen “Fiddler on the Roof,” you know the final scene where the villagers of Anatevka file out, belongings in tow, searching for a better life somewhere more free from oppression. In their case, the refuge they seek is from pogroms, whose vicious, chaotic, unprovoked attacks are fueled by religious intolerance.
Although stylized, and bathed in Hollywood’s influence, this is the story of my people. My great-great-grandfather Wolf Stayman fled Russia with his son Max (my namesake) to seek a better life in America. In this context, I feel a great deal of sympathy for any person that tries to escape the clenches of war-torn chaos.
Thus, it was with discomfort and dismay this week that I read about the Republican candidates who want to limit immigration based on religious identification. Both Jeb Bush (currently my preferred candidate) and Ted Cruz have said that only Christian refugees should be granted entry to the United States.
Cruz said that “President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s idea that we should bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees to America—it’s nothing less than lunacy.” As I sit here incredulous, my response is that it’s in fact “lunacy” to restrict immigration based on religion.
But let’s run through a few of the arguments.
First – the security concern. Some contend that ISIS, Al Qaeda or other groups may try to embed operatives into refugee streams. This is perhaps the most reasonable objection; we do need to be careful of who we let in. Nonetheless, this concern does not justify categorically denying entry to an entire religion.
Second – the idea that the religious test serves as a proxy for American beliefs. In other words, by testing for Christianity, we can make sure we let in the people who are most aligned with the American way. Am I, then, less American because I’m Jewish?
Third – the Arab countries should accept their own and we should wash our hands of the issue. I have only one response to this: the day we use the civil rights practices of the Arab world (e.g., Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.) as a measure of our own success is the day I throw in the towel. This is not a condemnation of Islam, but instead of the way these governments take care of their business.
Whether you believe those immortal words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty—“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me”—or simply in a common sense of humanity, there seems no room for such bigotry in the American narrative. There is no doubt this is the greatest country in the world. Unequivocally. What makes it so, among other things, is the categorical religious acceptance embedded in our dogma. At least in theory.
This isn’t the first instance of religion-based immigration preferences. On the eve of the Second World War, Fortune magazine published a poll about Americans’ preferences toward allowing “German, Austrian and other political refugees to come into the United States.” In this poll, fewer than 5 percent of Americans said, “we should encourage them to come even if we have to raise our immigration quotas.” In contrast, 67.4 percent answered that “with conditions as they are, we should try to keep them out.”
Let me be clear—this is one instance in which precedent does not signal the correct answer.
We are presented with an opportunity to do something good by others. By no means do I think we should carte blanche accept everyone who wants to come. Of course we don’t have the resources to do that. But of the number we believe we can sustain, how can we possibly restrict it based on religion or race or gender or any such characteristic?
If these politicians called for restrictions based on criminal history or infectious disease status, that would be one thing. But to sound a rallying cry against the non-Christian community to curry political favor is inexcusable. As President Obama said, it’s “shameful” and “not American.”
To the politicians who believe we should restrict immigration to Christian refugees only, I can only say this: You have been given the opportunity to be thoughtful leaders for our country. Please take that seriously, and don’t look for petty political points in the misfortune of others.
Max Stayman is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Fridays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.