Dems who supported ban on Syrian refugees changing their minds
In the days following the Paris terror attacks, emotions ran high in the US and a movement to ban Syrian refugees from coming to the US proved to be a popular, bi-partisan issue.
But as the initial emotions from the attacks fade, many Democrats who voted to ban the refugees are having second thoughts.
At least 26 of the 47 Democrats who supported the measure have signed on to a letter urging House Speaker Paul Ryan not to include it in a must-pass omnibus spending bill likely to be voted on in the coming days, according to groups helping arrange the missive.
The lawmakers assert that the U.S. has an obligation to help people seeking refuge from violence and persecution. They also reject measures being floated that would defund the U.S. refugee resettlement program, arguing that “funds available for the vetting and placement of refugees should be increased to ensure a thorough and expeditious process.”
“We should all agree that inserting wholesale changes to refugee admission policies into a year-end spending bill—where they cannot be properly debated or amended—is not the appropriate way to consider these issues,” the letter states.
The lawmakers, however, don’t say in the letter if they are willing to vote against the omnibus spending bill if the refugee legislation ultimately winds up in it.
At least 84 Democrats total had signed the letter as of Friday evening, with more expected by Sunday night. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) who voted for the initial House bill, is helping spearhead the drive for signatures. Others who voted for the House bill but signed the letter include Reps. Steve Israel of New York and Ron Kind of Wisconsin.
"The initial House vote was simply a knee-jerk reaction in response to the Paris terror attacks," said Yasmine Taeb, a lobbyist with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group that helped organize the letter. "We are a nation of immigrants and it is simply unacceptable for our elected officials to turn their backs on innocent women, men, and children fleeing violence and persecution."
These aren't "immigrants" and the whole question of whether they are "innocent" or not is the point of the legislation. We don't know. And given the vetting procedures we're currently using, we aren't likely to be able to weed out all the terrorists.
But that's the difference between the Democrats and us. They see the possibility of terrorist inflitration as an acceptable risk. We don't - especially when we can do a lot better job in determining who might be dangerous. The Democrats have the advantage in knowing that they'll never be the victim of a terror attack, so they're perfectly willing to risk the lives of you and your family to score political points against their opponents.
Cowardly Democrats who are backing off their original, common sense position should have their feet held to the fire by voters next November.