THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Side with the refugees, not the terrorists


image_pdfimage_print

By Joe Mathews

On a Saturday night after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, a plastic replica hand grenade was left in the driveway of Baitus Salaam Mosque in Hawthorne, a municipality near the Los Angeles airport. Someone also spray-painted “Jesus” on the mosque’s front gate and crosses on the windows.

The Ahmadiyya mosque community could have responded by erecting new walls or adding security. Instead, its members decided that the vandalism was an opportunity to connect with neighbors. So the mosque held an open house. “Extremism,” the community president Jalaluddin Ahmad said in an invitation, “will not scare us into locking our mosques. Rather we will open the doors wider to educate all.”

Joe Mathews

Joe Mathews

If only the rest of California were responding to this moment in the same spirit.

So far, we Californians—from everyday citizens to top leaders—have demonstrated an abundance of ignorance and cowardice. But if we thought of San Bernardino as an opportunity to reach out to others, we could emerge a safer, and even richer place.

Since the attack, California has seen a surge in vandalism and threats against mosques. And we’ve seen public authorities spread fear by overreacting to threats. Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District committed the cardinal sin of responding to terror with terror by closing all its schools—900-plus, serving 640,000 students—because of an implausible threat that other cities were quick to dismiss.

We’re also seeing political opportunists of both parties use the attacks to advance law enforcement agendas—like weakening the encryption that protects all of us from hacking or demanding onerous new requirement for foreign tourists that will hurt California’s tourism business. And we see some California Congressional Democrats joining Republicans in linking the attacks to concerns about Muslim refugees—an especially cruel and thoughtless response during the largest worldwide refugee crisis in decades.

Stop the madness, California. Our state needs a hard and immediate U-turn, which starts with recognizing how the attacks connect California to the rest of the world. While we have always been connected by who we are—27 percent of us are foreign-born, twice the national percentage, San Bernardino now connects us to people around the world as fellow victims of terrorism. We all saw the horror of just one attack in one building in one small city of a state of 39 million. Imagine such scenes repeated far more often in places like Syria. How can we not respond by seeking to help our fellow victims—especially refugees fleeing the same terror we’ve experienced?

California, more than any other place in this country, has been defined by its readiness to integrate people fleeing wars and other horrors. Most tellingly, California communities have often welcomed refugees even in the face of opposition from our leaders. Back in the 1970s, Gov. Jerry Brown was as wrong to oppose the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees here as President Ronald Reagan was a decade later to oppose the taking-in of refugees from Central American wars. Both Vietnamese and Central American arrivals have enriched California immensely. In more recent times, our state has responded to callous inaction in Washington, D.C., by giving what public services and legal status it can to undocumented immigrants and to child refugees coming over our border.

So why do we allow ourselves to be limited by the United States’ decision to accept indefensibly low numbers of refugees from Syria (just 10,000) and other theaters of American warfare? California, as a global power in its own right, would do well to set the goal of leading the world in accepting refugees.

Sweden, with fewer than 10 million citizens, has accepted 200,000 refugees this year. Germany, with 80 million citizens, has taken in about 800,000 this year. California leaders and citizens, as a start, should express our willingness to accommodate a number that would put us in that class—say 500,000 refugees from Syria and other places. And our demand for more refugees should also include the request that the laborious and bureaucratic process of screening refugees—it lasts two years—be expedited. We need to save as many lives as we can, as fast as we can.

Of course Washington, not the state, makes refugee policy, as a federal matter. But a push by California to fulfill its historical role as America’s America would change the conversation nationally. And if we were to get such a number of refugees, there would be huge challenges—but also huge payoffs. Our welcoming stance would distinguish us internationally—and offer a competitive advantage over the lily-livered cowboys in Texas and 29 other states who are so consumed by fear that they’re seeking to block the arrival of even tiny numbers of refugees. It’d be much easier for California, as a generous and welcoming place, to make connections of trade and commerce to the many Muslim countries that are, despite tremendous challenges, on the path to greater wealth and democracy.

We’d also win at home, since refugees would be assets in a state that needs more people. Immigration is flat here, the birth rate is down, and our increasingly homegrown population is aging, with fewer children to support it. Refugees would provide a shot in the arm to our culture and our economy—and the human capital to make up big deficits the state faces in the number of skilled workers.

The fact that such a movement in California sounds unrealistic—I can already hear the fear-mongers accusing me of wanting to give California its own Islamic state—shows just how far down the road of unreasoning fear we’ve already gone. Let’s turn around, and send the vital and very Californian message that, in this great place, the doors are always open—and that we don’t punish the many for the heinous crimes of the few.

Joe Mathews is California and innovation editor for Zócalo Public Square, for which he writes the Connecting California column.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (10)
  1. pine tree says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    Really. He doesn’t want screening or anything. Just let them in? What I also hear is that people are no longer choosing Calif to raise their children because of the extream radical political and social views tooting their horn that they are sweet and accepting creatures, so we need to let unscreened refugees in to repopulate the state they have already ruined. Wow.

  2. Justice says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    He, like all bleeding heart leftists, should offer their own homes to fake Islamic “refugees” and go to some dangerous Muslim countries like Syria and see reality. We don’t want their reality here or their beliefs and laws. This article is a joke. How many fake “refugees” and poverty recruits and hard core drug cartel criminals walking in through Senile Jerry’s open border and sanctuary state can be foisted upon a naïve people? Unchecked radical/refugee haven? Why in the world do these country wrecking leftists think this is a good idea? This liberal loon needs to check himself into a mental hospital.

  3. don't give up says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    Joe, why do you have such hate for your state and country?

  4. Marlene@Tahoe says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    Joe is an example of the idiocy that is ruining the state and the country. We are both a sovereign state and country and we the people are due the protections of a sovereign nation. These people “refugees” should be distributed in the culture and climate they are accustomed to. This violence and twisted thinking has been going on even before the sick Mohammed creation. Keep the problem over there.
    “Opening our country in the name of brotherly love” is backfiring on ALL of Europe. The smart countries are ‘escorting’ the rabbel, out of the country. They are mostly adult males that are surprisingly fit for being refugees and vehemently anti- assimilation minded of the host. In fact, parasitic in jumping on all the feebies that the tax paying citizens have paid into, with the exorbitant tax rates they pay every year to have the “privilege” of living in these countries.
    Wake up to the destruction of this country and the manipulation by the political elite ~ disband the U.N.

  5. TeaTotal says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    ^^^ These are the ‘patriotic Amerkins’ that form the teabagger base Trump/Cruz voters- they get their info from all the same places that prey on intellectually frustrated, willfully ignorant dullards-a global embarrassment that will never happen-

    http://www.feelthebern.org

    http://www.cern.net

  6. Rick H says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    Justice and Marlene: Al Cracker – right wing radicals have killed 254 Americans in the US while those associated with radical Islamic ideology have killed 50 Americans. So maybe we should keep southern boys from immigrating into our state. That would do more then worrying about refugees.

    see this statement:
    A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.” The spokesperson declined to specify what exactly the security concerns were, how many of the dozen were arrested, and for what charges.

    So a fraction of 1% have been ferreted out due to the extensive review process we have in place (on average an 18 month process).

    As I noted above (and stole from Chris Rock) Al Cracker is the biggest concern.

    Rick

  7. billy the mountain says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    teatotal: did you mean http://home.cern/ ?

  8. tahoeanhiker says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    I guess rick chose to forget the 3000 killed on 9/11 …

  9. Rick H says - Posted: December 29, 2015

    I forgot to add since 9/11 Al Cracker is 5 times a greater risk than Al Queda.

    Rick

  10. rock4tahoe says - Posted: January 2, 2016

    To Pine, Justn@ss, Don’t and Marlene. Why stop with Syrians to throw out of “Merika? Let’s get rid of the:

    Manson’s (Charles Manson clan)
    Jones’s (Jim Jones clan)
    McVeigh’s (Tim McVeigh clan)
    Nichol’s (Terry Nichols clan)
    Harris’s (Erik Harris clan)
    Klebold’s (Dylan Klebolds clan)
    Lanza’s (Adam Lanza’s clan)
    Roof’s (Dylann Roofs clan)
    Cho’s (Seung Chos clan)
    Hasan’s (Nidal Hasans clan)
    Barton’s (Mark Bartons clan)
    Job’s (Steve Jobs was born in Syria)
    (abrev) There are more.

    Do we assume that Muhammad Ali, Dr. Oz, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Shaquille O’Neil, Snoop Dog-Lion, Dave Chappelle and Janet Jackson (and many more) have to go since they converted to Islam.

    Next, go after the Italians related to Mafia bosses (to many to list). Anybody related to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan (again to many to list).

    Yes, do not forget anyone from Saudi Arabia since that is where most of the 911 Hijackers were from. Or is it simply anyone that is Arab or Muslim.

    On second thought, this list is going to get pretty large. Why don’t all the Xenophobes find an island somewhere and put up a wall around, probably an easier plan.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/