Home»Politics»The NY Times’ perspective on Syrian refugees is amateur political posturing

The NY Times’ perspective on Syrian refugees is amateur political posturing

Pinterest Google+

Unlike many of my cohorts, I’m not one who instantly bashes mainstream media for everything they say. I believe that most journalists are fair in their hearts and only lean one way or the other, which is why it was shocking to see the NY Times take such an obtuse stance on the Syrian refugee situation.

This isn’t from a single author. This particular article came from the Editorial Board itself.

Originally, I planned on taking their far-left sentiment and breaking it down idiotic point by idiotic point, but the list of idiotic points was way too long which is funny since the article isn’t that long. I’ll pick out some of the zingers instead.

Stating Our Motivations Incorrectly

“Building new barriers to keep them out with the absurd argument that Muslims are inherently dangerous could provide propaganda benefits to the Islamic State.”

It’s conspicuous that there are no links within this particular paragraph. The reason is pretty simple. Nobody is making that argument. I read a lot of conservative websites and outside of the fringe bigots claiming to be conservatives there is no mention, no insinuation, nor anything that could remotely be construed as an argument that we should build new barriers because Muslims are inherently dangerous.

This is an example of what happens too much on both sides of the aisle. Progressives perceive what they believe conservatives think and conservatives perceive what they believe progressives think. When it comes to direct statements, this is easy. When it comes to understanding the motivations of the opposing side, it rarely works out. No, those calling for prudent measures before allowing Syrian refugees into the country are not doing so because we believe that Muslims are inherently dangerous. The NY Times editorial board, on the other hand, appears to be extremely inherently dangerous.

Yes, Things Have Changed

“President Jean-Claude Juncker of the European Commission was right when he said on Sunday that the Paris attacks should not be used as a reason to revise the European Union’s entire refugee policy.”

The only reason the Paris attacks shouldn’t be a reason to revise the entire refugee policy is because it should have been revised well before the attacks. In fact, had the policy been revised before, the attacks may have never happened.

Nobody likes reactionary policy changes but that’s unfortunately how things work. The mail-order gun system was disassembled in response to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It wasn’t the first time someone was killed with a mail-order gun, but it was prominent. The Paris attacks were prominent but they were not alone. The Russian passenger jet and the attacks in Beirut demonstrate that the Islamic State isn’t just a one-trick pony. This isn’t 9/11 which changed more policies than anyone write down on a napkin. The overall reach of the Islamic State combined with the logistics of the refugee crisis means that Europe, the United States, and the whole world should revise their refugee policies.

Finally, We Agree. Sort Of.

“Resettling Syrian refugees will take years and entail significant costs. But the prosperous nations of the world must share the burden of doing so and resist the temptation to simply say, No, not here.”

It will definitely take years. It will definitely entail significant costs. The nations who can share in the burden should share in the burden. I agree. Unfortunately, the fact that it will take years, that it will take significant costs, and that nations with the means should be helping are all very good reasons why this must be handled properly. The idea of rushing in and taking on unacceptable risk is ludicrous. We need to help the Syrians the right way, not through some misplaced sense of obligation to do it the wrong way.

The NY Times has great power in shifting perspectives. They often choose to use this power to hurt the country. That’s their prerogative. However, when their perspectives are so insane that they might influence the wrong sheep to do the wrong things, it’s time to call them out for it.

Previous post

Why is Bobby Jindal the only one saying this?

Next post

Will Democrats (and Mitch McConnell) allow Kate's Law to pass?

No Comment

Leave a reply

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