January 30, 2017 by

Banning Refugees Is Cowardice, Not Vigilance – Article by Sean J. Rosenthal

2 comments

Categories: Culture, Justice, Politics, Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Renaissance HatSean J. Rosenthal
******************************

Donald Trump’s ban on people of certain nationalities entering the United States – now buffeted about by court orders, clarifications, and defiance – is a systematic rejection of the principle of Freedom of Movement with no impetus other than unacceptable, widespread cowardice.

The September 11 terrorist attacks cannot excuse such a grievous violation of rights. Terrorism is domestically a statistically trivial threat. The countries banned by Trump had little relation to 9/11, and the people denied entry to the United States are just as harmless (if not more so) than the average American. Neither reasons nor sudden trauma justify Trump’s actions – only cowardice.

In opposition to courageous principles like Freedom of Movement, discretion is courage’s institutional nemesis. Fear-induced discretion splits principles like scientists split atoms, producing explosively dangerous results.

Except to the extent courts stop him, Trump has undermined Freedom of Movement through an order to keep out people from Middle Eastern countries designated as countries of concern by the Obama administration.

Refugees already thoroughly vetted as safe, including business owners and participants in the Iraq war who have lived for years in the United States – all denied entry, all forced to beg for the government to wisely exercise its discretion in the face of an arbitrary burden.

Trump’s immigration policies are unwise and unjust. More tellingly, Trump’s restrictions on movement suffer more fully from another sin – a lack of courage.

Individual or Systemic Courage

At an individual level, it’s true that courage tends to be an overrated virtue. The image of “courageous” people often looks like warriors courting danger guns-blazing because they lacked the patience and ingenuity to find better solutions. Thus, courage is for the warrior fighting to the death.

Among non-violent “courageous” acts, contrarians who “stand up for what they believe in” often get courage points for being edgy or brutalist, as if people deserve praise for offering unconvincing evidence against social pressure. Generally, courage tends to be praised relative to the inactions of other people, forgetting that people often avoid doing certain things because they should not be done.

Moreover, fear is often unreasonable in ways immune to argument, making courage a weak appeal. For instance, traveling by planes is much safer than traveling by cars, but planes paralyze people in ways that statistics cannot cure because the fear of flying is a feeling, not a fact.

Similarly, terrorism is a statistically trivial cause of death in the United States, even including 9/11 and especially excluding that outlier, but terrorism causes widespread fears orders of magnitudes more crippling than the actual violence. To give a personal example, I have a totally unreasonable aversion to walking over storm drains and similar parts of sidewalks that leads me to walk around them.

Condemning fear rarely assuages it, and demanding courage rarely emboldens, because personality, ingrained perceptions and idiosyncrasies matter more than reasons for explaining fear and courage.

The Courage to be Free

Nevertheless, good institutions require courage.

For example, Freedom of Speech is a courageous principle. Freedom of Speech allows people to profess the wise and unwise, just and unjust, beautiful and vulgar. The dangers of the government deciding which speech falls into which categories justifies overriding particularized fears because of the courageous belief that free people can generally promote a better, more beautiful world through discourse. The courage required to permit others to speak, not knowing what they may say, far exceeds the courage of merely saying something unpopular.

Historically, fear commonly led to censorship. The Athenians sinned against philosophy by executing Socrates for corrupting the young, a fear of the influence of discourse. Similarly, the Pope compiled an Index of banned books and sought to censor them, fearful of the influential power of written words. Fear governed the world’s old order.

After weighing the liberating potential and corrupting dangers of pamphlets, America rejected the old order and institutionalized courage as common sense. Freedom of speech is the courage of a brave new world.

(To digress briefly into unimportant news stories, you should not punch Nazis merely for expressing their views. Only cowards without such faith in discourse and alternative peaceful methods would do so – and the cowardly types who have forgotten Ruby Ridge.)

Similarly, the Bill of Rights institutionalizes one courageous principle after another. The Bill of Rights trusts people with guns, protects potential criminals through warrants and other procedures, and generally imposes substantial burdens on the government before it can override individual freedoms, all because of the courageous general faith in free people.

The Freedom of Movement

Along with the above principles, the United States has a long history of embracing the courageous principle of Freedom of Movement.

America was formed by immigrants who courageously journeyed thousands of miles to leave European persecution and seek wealth and freedom. Without passports or other border restrictions, America promoted friendship and growth across state boundaries by allowing Freedom of Movement. Though the Constitution does not explicitly include such a right, the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that people have the right to travel freely between states.

Freedom of Movement between states is such a strong principle that nobody even considers imposing border restrictions. People from St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and other American cities that rank among the world’s most dangerous can freely traverse anywhere else in America without legal barriers, even as national borders prevent the impoverished immigrants of safer foreign cities from doing the same.

Internationally, America also used to embrace such a broad principle. From the late 1700s until the late 1800s, though citizenship was unconscionably selective, the federal government allowed all foreigners to enter the United States – and, with the understanding that the naturalization clause only gave Congress control over citizenship, had no choice but to do so. To celebrate a century of such Freedom of Movement, France gifted America the statue of liberty with a famous poem dedicated to such American courage.

Unfortunately, around the same time, the federal government’s fear of the Chinese led it to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Supreme Court mistakenly upheld it. Thus, Freedom of Movement split from a courageous principle to a discretionary privilege, literally allowing fear to determine the borders of freedom.

Outside the context of the Chinese, such discretion remained largely unexercised for decades. Unencumbered by national borders, by World War I, two million Jews successfully fled Russia’s pogroms to freedom and safety in America.

However, by the 1920s, the dangers of discretionary power took hold, and the United States severely reduced legal immigration with its national origin quota systems. By World War II, the United States and the whole world had rejected immigrants.

The greatest victims of Freedom of Movement’s demise were the Jews that the world rejected at the Evian Conference and thereafter. Americans widely opposed Jewish refugees out of fear that some of them may secretly be communists or Nazis.

Unlike the millions saved by a courageous embrace of Freedom of Movement through World War I, fear undermined this principle and led to the death of millions during the Holocaust in World War II.

Refugees and Skittles

Without the courageous principle of Freedom of Movement, people’s fears determine and limit how many refugees can escape despotism and warfare. Just as fear trapped Jewish refugees during World War II, such fear traps Syrian refugees now.

Emphasizing the underlying fear, a thought experiment that opponents of Syrian refugees commonly ask goes something like: imagine you have a bowl of 1,000 skittles, only ten of which are poisonous. Would you eat the skittles? If not, then you understand why Syrian refugees must be so carefully restricted. Most alleged refugees might not be dangerous, but the government cannot know which ones are harmless and must prevent them all from entering to stop poison from seeping over our borders.

In reply to this thought experiment, most defenders of refugees argue over the numbers. Statistically, as mentioned above, refugees are vetted carefully and virtually all harmless, and almost none have been murderers or terrorists. Moreover, basically all studies on immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees, etc.) show that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than typical Americans. So, if you increase the bowl size to like 3,200,000 skittles with 20 poisonous, then yeah, the chance is justified.

In contrast to this response, I do not think the exact proportion matters much because of the agreement that almost all the refugees should ideally be allowed to enter. The skittles thought experiment is the coward’s game for people lacking the courage to accept Freedom of Movement as a principle.

Courageous principles sometimes allow bad outcomes. Freedom of speech allows for some noxious ideas to spread. Gun rights allow for some bad people to more easily engage in violence. Requirements for warrants allow for some criminals to hide their crimes. And freedom of movement allows for some bad people to travel where they can do harm.

Such courageous principles do not create perfect worlds. They create structures in which people have the freedom to shape the world, for better or worse – with better usually winning. Depriving the vast majority of people’s freedom to prevent a small minority from spreading evil impoverishes and threatens everybody.

Courageous Americans who embrace the existing dangers of speech, guns, and warrants should also similarly embrace the dangers of movement. Fear-induced discretionary restrictions on freedom of movement mean 99 ash-ridden Syrian children suffering from poverty, warfare, and death for the chance of maybe keeping out one bad person.

In sum, to paraphrase Shakespeare, cowards kill many times before their deaths; the valiant’s tastes let others live.

Thus, cowards ask how many poisonous skittles might sneak in with a broad rainbow and fear the tiny shadows that enter with the radiant light. In contrast, the valiant ask how many Anne Franks will die if we fear these tiny shadows and instead courageously opens the golden door for the rainbow, realizing today’s Anne Franks are in Syria.

Sean J. Rosenthal is attorney in New York.

This article was published by The Foundation for Economic Education and may be freely distributed, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which requires that credit be given to the author. Read the original article.

2 Responses to Banning Refugees Is Cowardice, Not Vigilance – Article by Sean J. Rosenthal

  1. Kyrel Zantonavitch

    The first sentence of this article reads: “Donald Trump’s ban on people of certain nationalities entering the United States…is a systematic rejection of the principle of Freedom of Movement with no impetus other than unacceptable, widespread cowardice.”

    Three errors in the first sentence is a lot. This guy doesn’t sound like a friend of Western liberalism or The Enlightenment at all. His opposition to reason, individualism, and freedom seems massive and systematic.

    Trumps attempted ban is an act of self-defense — which is the whole purpose of gov’t. It’s a rational, and seemingly wise, response to a considerable and objective threat. Evil enemies and subhuman monsters — like Nazis, communists, and Muslims — have no right of invasion. Relatively civilized countries, and decent individuals, have a right of self-defense.

    This ban isn’t against “nationalities,” but proclivities or philosophies, namely those who advocate, and could easily practice, jihad (war) and sharia (slavery). To say this ban attacks “Freedom of Movement” is to say mass-murderers have, by right, unlimited access to their victims. To call it “cowardice” is a smear on those who don’t wish to suffer from subhuman destroyers, nor to see evil socially triumph.

    This is the worst article I can recall in ‘The Rational Argumentator’. I’d love to hear its author try to defend it.

  2. Gennady Stolyarov II

    Kyrel Zantonavitch, you are entirely mistaken in your remarks. Tolerance for peaceful differences, individual rights, and cosmopolitanism are hallmarks of the Enlightenment. Mr. Rosenthal’s article is not an “opposition to reason, individualism, and freedom” but the very expression of them. It is those who seek a blanket ban on immigration from certain parts of the world – simply because a small minority of people in those parts of the world have engaged in reprehensible atrocities – who are actually rejecting reason, individualism, and freedom. Such blanket, indiscriminate prejudice is the very definition of collectivism, in fact.

    Trump’s ban was not and could not be an act of self-defense. The specific individuals whom it thwarted were precisely those who had previously been subjected to “extreme vetting” of the sort Trump has advocated – with their personal histories and proclivities thoroughly investigated by the U.S. federal government before they were granted completely legal refugee status, immigrant visas, and in some cases even U.S. permanent residency. These are the very people who diligently complied with the U.S. immigration system, who followed all the rules in an effort to build better lives for themselves as individuals. For Trump to deprive them of that legal status retroactively, in many cases while they were already en route to the United States, is arbitrary, capricious, cruel, and tyrannical.

    The individuals who were banned and detained in horrific conditions are often the very people who assisted the United States in the fight against Islamist militants – translators and soldiers in Iraq – as well as scholars, students, and people seeking to escape Islamist militancy and authoritarian tyranny in their home countries. It is not only irrational and anti-individualistic, but a bizarre inversion of morality to make the lives of these people more miserable precisely because they seek to escape the oppression in their countries of origin and precisely because they consider the United States to offer opportunities for a better, saner, more peaceful life.

    To call Muslims “evil enemies and subhuman monsters” plays directly into the hands of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and similar true monsters. Those groups specifically seek to eliminate any possibility of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Western civilization – what they call the “gray zone”. They cheered the election of Trump precisely because they knew that Trump would antagonize and alienate individual Muslims who had strong incentives to be reasonable and seek to forge a compatibility between their worldview and contemporary Western life. The rhetoric of Trump and those who support him only serves to convince those who might have otherwise been our allies that they will not be accepted by the West no matter what they do, and that only drives them into the hands of the militants.

    The probability that any individual would fall victim to Islamist terrorism is minuscule – lower than being struck by lightning or being killed by falling off of one’s bed. Native-born criminals kill many orders of magnitude more Americans than immigrants and certainly far more than those termed “terrorists”. Even among official acts of terrorism, those by hard-core nativist groups (the “right-wing militias”) occur with far greater frequency than those perpetrated by Islamists. All such acts are heinous, of course – but only the perpetrators of murderous violence benefit by an “us versus them” polarization. We need to bring all reasonable people into Western civilization and use their skills to defeat the purveyors of violence. Demonizing and blocking innocent people only undermines us and exposes us to greater danger in the long term.

    Sincerely,
    Gennady Stolyarov II, ASA, ACAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe, ARC, API, AIS, AIE, AIAF
    Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
    Chief Executive, Nevada Transhumanist Party
    Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator
    Author, Death is Wrong

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *