Self-willed delusion.

• Author: Erler, Edward J.
• Position: Worldview - Refugees and national security

"... Sanctuary cities [are those] that refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities in detaining illegal-alien criminals. This is the most baffling policy that can be imagined, as it results in criminals deliberately being released into the public where they continue to prey on innocent citizens. It is designed to show (what else?) our tolerance."

Nothing has provoked the ire of America's bipartisan political class as much as Pres.-elect Donald Trump's proposal that the U.S. should suspend the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other terrorist-supporting nations until we find a way of perfecting the screening process to ensure that we are not admitting terrorists or terror sympathizers. On its face, this proposal is not unreasonable. Most of these refugees do not have adequate documentation; intelligence agencies do not have sufficient information to determine whether or not they have terrorist connections or intend to engage in terrorism; and the heads of our security agencies have warned that active terrorists inevitably will slip through security screening cracks--nor is it as if there was no reasonable alternative.

Wouldn't it have been better, as Trump and others have suggested, to address the refugee crisis by setting up security zones in Syria or other Middle Eastern countries where refugees could find safety and where Muslim nations might feel obligated to help finance their care? In addition to making sense from a national security perspective, this would have been a more humane solution, since it would not have uprooted the refugees from their homelands and injected them into an alien way of life.

Why are our political leaders, despite these facts, willing to expose the nation to such potential danger?--a danger that surely is greater than we now imagine. One only has to observe the results of the refugee crisis in Europe to see what is in store for the American homeland. Yet, the Obama Administration, following Chancellor Angela Merkel's government in Germany, has been adamant that the number of Syrian refugees--and Muslim refugees generally--must increase substantially. (Surely, Pres.-elect Trump has other ideas.) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has named Merkel as her favorite world leader (perhaps that is one reason she lost to Trump), frequently has indicated that acceptance of refugees is an important reaffirmation of America's commitment to diversity. It is a reaffirmation of "who we are as Americans," she has said, as if the American character is defined by its unlimited openness to diversity.

To show the bipartisan nature of this commitment, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan--at least before the election--used the same phrase to explain his approval of the refugee program. In both cases, the clear implication is that the U.S.'s commitment to diversity outweighs considerations of national security. Indeed, in what only can be called a self-willed delusion, proponents of the refugee program seem to believe that their commitment to diversity makes us stronger and more secure as a nation, and that any opposition to the program is racist, xenophobic, and, most particularly, Islamophobic.

Consider what this means. Germans have been warned that it is their duty to accommodate themselves to newly arrived refugees and not to place politically incorrect demands upon them--that is, not to demand that the refugees adapt to German ways. Some have advised German women in particular that, if they do not wish to be harassed by male refugees, they should cover their...