The Syrian Refugees and Globalization

Steele Coddington

The Syrian Refugee Program, along with refugees from other terrorist-supporting nations, has been the subversive brain child of American progressives championed by Obama, adopted whole heartedly by Hillary Clinton, and even misguided Paul Ryan, who added the financing for thousands to the last U.S. Omnibus Bill. Set aside for a moment the concern about the already shocking arrival of hordes of Muslim immigrants in hundreds of U.S. communities. Mostly they have demonstrated adherence to Sharia law and the inability to assimilate their culture with American society. With the American public decidedly disturbed by the hostile invasion, why do the progressives persist in favoring it?

Syrian Refugees were the subject of a recent article written by Professor Edward J. Erler, highly regarded scholar, author and lecturer on Citizenship and Immigration, published in Hillsdale College’s Imprimis. The depth of his discussion on the Syrian Refugee question is more than we can detail here, but even a brief familiarization with the terminology associated with globalization should be enough to scare anyone who values the freedoms of constitutional government. In my opinion, his article provides a warning on how the globalization agenda and U.S. Syrian Refugees Program incorporates the usual leftist seeds that undermine constitutional safeguards for individual freedom.

A simpler solution to the problem is – forget bringing them to the U.S. Why not consider the sensible solution to their problem by establishing instead, security zones in Syria and/or other Middle East Muslim countries. There they are within the culture they refuse to change and do not become unwanted wards of refugee programs in cultures that are alien to theirs.

Trying to justify refugee resettlement in America, Hillary Clinton, Obama and the host of progressives use the phony ploy of, “That’s who we are,” for reaffirmation of a commitment to diversity. It’s an attempt to redefine America, “By its unlimited openness to diversity,” that ignores national security.

The ultimate goal of globalization is to establish a world without borders.But, as Professor Erler points out, “A world without borders is a world without citizens, and … a world without citizens is a world without rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship that exists only in separate and independent nations.

He compares a borderless world to the European Union which “is not a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats . . . it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulations as parts of administrative rule.”

My understanding is that today’s politically correct world find it easy to abandon the Declaration of Independence framework of morality. The “unalienable rights” of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Constitution are accompanied by corresponding duties and obligations based on rational (thoughtful) moral exercise of those rights for an orderly social contract delineated in the founding document. But moral obligations in today’s world are increasingly diminished by acceptance of the non-moral doctrine of “Relativism” where all values are equal.

Under that banner the commitment to diversity would be the rule, and non-moral tolerance becomes the controlling value. When rationality based on morality is surrendered on the altar of “tolerance,” the rights of sovereignty fly out the window and are replaced by diversity. Under that assumption open borders are the new welcome mats that say, “More refugees” and “Unlimited Immigration” and hello to a new tolerance that signals a willingness “to commit national suicide.” Globalization will have replaced the morality of individual freedom explicit n Sovereignty. The Professor’s article can be obtained by referring to “”