The Refugee Plan that Makes Way Too Much Sense for Most Politicians

Share


The topic that is polarizing the United States right now is the Syrian refugee issue. Most Democrats (though not all) want to allow them into America with the current “screening” process in place. Nearly all Republicans want some measure of action ranging from revising the screening process to completely halting the refugee process altogether.

Before we go into the details of a common sense plan that would work, let’s address the extremes within both parties. The Democrats that believe it’s okay to operate the process exactly the way it currently sits are being naive. We were calling attention to the fact that the Islamic State was taking advantage of the refugee crisis well before the terrorist attacks in Paris proved this to be true. Now that it’s confirmed, their defense of blind allowance of refugees is untenable.

The Republicans cannot embrace a complete isolationist perspective, either. We can’t simply say, “not our problem.” It is absolutely our problem with the Middle East being so pivotal to the future of our country and even if it wasn’t, we are the leader of the world. We are able to help and we absolutely must fulfill our responsibility to help those who need help.

That doesn’t mean opening our borders. It doesn’t mean acting stupid. It means that we must be smart about how we help, but we must help nonetheless. Of course, we don’t have to do it alone. This is where Saudi Arabia comes in.

Saudi Arabia and Jack Sprat

The Saudis do not want non-Muslims in their country, which means that they can sort through the refugees to identify Christians. If that doesn’t spark the clarity in your own mind of what we must do, then I’ll elaborate.

Some Republicans have suggested allowing Christian refugees in while denying Muslim refugees. If the Saudis can be persuaded to allow refugees, they’ll want the exact opposite of what we want. What that means is that with a proper infrastructure and international funding, we could “pull a Jack Sprat.”

Jack Sprat could eat no fat.

His wife could eat no lean.

And so between them both, you see,

They licked the platter clean.

The basic details can be seen in a previous post about the radical idea to solve the refugee problem. Here are are the basics:

  1. Compel Saudi Arabia to take on refugees. Remember, they don’t have all of the oil. They have many of the most lucrative oil contracts. There are plenty of countries such as Venezuela who would love the future benefits of those contracts if Saudi Arabia continues to be obtuse in their stance.
  2. Allow Saudi Arabia to conduct the first level of background checks. They can do it better than us. They can identify the likely Islamic State sympathizers. More importantly, they can find the Christians. They don’t want the Christians. America does.
  3. Those who are identified as likely Christians will then be vetted by the FBI. That doesn’t mean that all of them will be Christians nor does it mean that being a Christian means that they definitely aren’t terrorists. It does, however, reduce the chances of Islamic State infiltration.
  4. Christian and secular organizations in the United States will be given responsibility to help the refugees. They will assist and monitor with assistance from law enforcement. The American people can help as long as they’re comfortable with the vetting process. Otherwise, it will be hard to get enough support.
  5. The goal is to eventually return nearly all refugees to Syria once stability is brought to their ravaged lands.

The first objection from politicians will be that Saudi Arabia cannot be compelled. This is ridiculous. They have held the world at bay for decades and it’s time for them to contribute more than money to solving the situation for their fellow Muslim brothers. They have a population density of 36 people per square compared to Germany at 591 per square mile. They have no excuse to not step up.

Nobody in the US government has ever wanted to call out Saudi Arabia. Now is the time. The world hangs in the balance and the United States must act. That doesn’t mean we have to act alone.

Soshable

Share

The Lunacy of Our Election Process Puts Too Much Emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire

Share


When the nominees are in place, I’ll go into the other crazy aspect of the electoral college that makes my vote meaningless. For now, I’ll discuss why the use of primaries spread out over months is utterly ludicrous.

As a California Republican, I literally have zero vote for President. By the time June, 2016 rolls around, there’s a pretty good chance that the GOP nominee will be all but locked in. Since the Republicans will absolutely not win California in the general election, my vote will be meaningless next November as well. How can we consider this process logical, fair, or remotely intelligent when many people have absolutely no influence on the outcome?

Then, there’s Iowa and New Hampshire. There’s a reason that some candidates spend dozens of days in these states while only coming to California for the occasional fundraiser. The voters in these first two primary/caucus states have exponentially more influence over the Presidential election than the vast majority of Americans. Their vote literally counts more than mine. They don’t have special voting knowledge. They haven’t done anything to earn their spot of having “supervotes” compared to my meaningless votes other than the fact that they live in a state that the system has deemed to be more important than mine (and probably yours, depending on where you live).

They will be able to vote for candidates who will no longer be an option for me. That’s assuming that I have an option at all. By the time they make it here, there’s a possibility that both parties will have nominees and American citizens in several states will have had no say whatsoever. In other words, our votes simply don’t count.

There is no argument that can be made to prove to me that it makes sense to have a system like this. Before anyone thinks that it’s sour grapes because I live in California, keep in mind that I would be griping just the same if I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire. The system is completely broken. The people in those states will have hundreds of opportunities to meet the people who are trying to lead this country while most people will be lucky to have a single opportunity.

This all made sense back in the 18th century when communication and travel were much slower and the size of the country was much smaller. Today, it makes absolutely zero sense. I’m certain that someone can find a logical, legal way to fix this system, but apparently nobody’s trying hard enough.

Chris Christie has spent 44 days in New Hampshire. Have you seen him in your state? Is your vote less important than the vote of someone in New Hampshire? Unless you live in Iowa, the answer is yes, and that’s simply not right.

Soshable

Share