E Pluribus UnumAs so often is the case, the very simple sport of running is an excellent prism through which to view life’s more complex problems. For life in all its saturated colored highs, depressing grays, and even coal-black lows can be found within the compressed world of long-distance foot racing.

The lesson, overall, is not to give in to the highs any more so than to the lows. Instead, one learns to soldier on, establishing intermediate goals that lead to more profound ones as the process itself becomes the primary directive.

Therefore, much like how individual track and field events merely share the same venue at a track meet, but don’t cohere into anything beyond that unless bound by a unifying intention (i.e. the NCAA Championship), so too are myriad Americans increasingly sharing this land of the Pilgrim’s Pride, but not its common values or cohering historic assumptions.

That is the backdrop that frames the argument du jour of whether to allow thousands of Syrian refugees to immigrate to the U.S. in the wake of the ISIS attacks in Paris last week. And it isn’t an argument that easily translates into precise lanes of right or wrong.

To date, 31 state governors have said, “no” to the proposition of taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees, arguing that there are already enough strains on the body politic as it is, both ones born of our political making and ones tied to the tenor of our times. President Obama counters, “It isn’t who we are” to deny the refugees a safe haven from the savagery they face at home.

But in fact, how do we define WE, THE PEOPLE anymore? For the modern world has been unraveling the old ties that bind for quite some time, certainly well before we ever got to the Syrian immigration issue.


Where American cities once had single, well recognized telephone area codes, a local newspaper or two, and only three local network-affiliated TV stations (with each station located at the lower end of the dial in fixed positions), today there are hundreds of stations, fewer and fewer newspapers, and a cascading number of websites from which to choose your news point-of-view. And no affiliation stands as ever-lasting.

Churches, schools, and civic institutions were once woven together to create the fabric of society. But today the fabric of national identity is fraying as globalization and technology have weakened once stable institutions and nation-states. Even pro sports teams move from city to city like itinerant farm workers.


The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 30 Years War in 1648, established the hegemony of nation-states as we know them today. This national hegemony led to the treaties and accords which formed the basis for international peace and trade. But we are increasingly witnessing the limit of that governing alignment as non-state players like ISIS and Al Qaeda emerge to control newly designed plots of land and a growing, non-linear assembly of hearts and minds, even as the old nation players continue exercising long-held enmities against one another, seemingly unable to move beyond the Cold War identities that dominated the latter half of the 20th century.

Bringing large numbers of Syrian refugees over here now when terror cells are searching greedily for avenues of entry, has the potential to use our best qualities of mercy and compassion against us. This is what asymmetrical warfare looks like. But to ignore the plight of the truly needy would also play into the hands of the jihadi propagandists who could point to America’s stiff arm as, “See, they hate you for who you are. This really is a clash of civilizations.”

This crisis does not arrive in a vacuum. It cannot be viewed simply as a snapshot when there is a longer narrative in play. Yes, these people are in trouble. But to immediately respond, “We have a long history of taking in refugees, so let us just take in these” isn’t thinking of the long-term consequence for them or for the USA.  What’s the upshot of it if it continues to make the country less stable?


America has absorbed millions of immigrants since 1600. More than any other nation it is the nation of the world. There was a huge influx of immigrants from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But from 1921 to 1965 there was a relatively small trickle – it was case by case via a National Origins Formula— because we needed to absorb and integrate those previous two generation of immigrants.  Without assimilation we risk seeing more and more Americans remain so in name only, which only makes us weaker in times when unity forms real strength.

So if we are to take the Syrian refuges in we can’t just let them roam free bereft of any socialization. What good does it do to let them in, and then allow them to be shunned by a fearful local population to the point where unintended resentment sets in and possible radicalization takes place? The terrorists in Paris were European home-grown, like the Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev & ‎Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Is it better to work politically to help carve out a safe place for the Syrian refugees back in the Middle East where they’re part of the general culture? Or would sequestering them in the middle east, as some suggest, increase the likelihood they would become radicalized as poverty and lack of medical care are recognized as the two most important indicators that lead to extremism?

These are difficult questions in difficult times. From a purely humanitarian standpoint the immigrants fleeing war-torn Syria deserve a chance to be re-settled.  For its part France is holding to accepting 30,000 over the next two years despite the attacks in Paris.

But with so much debt already in our pipeline, with our infrastructure crumbling around us — and a contentious presidential campaign appealing to our more narrow-minded interests — we have to wonder how to apportion our limited resources as the world increasingly washes up on our shores.

There is no easy solution. Any answer is cautionary, at best.  But some responsibility stems from our own addiction to cheap Mideast oil, and the convenience of backing dictatorial regimes who suppressed their own people as part of our see-no-evil pact with the devil. This goes back many decades, a multiple generational problem that will require a multiple generation solution.  What is certain, however, is that it isn’t something we can simply run from.



  1. Meanwhile, in 2013, we real Americans managed to murder about 14,196 of us (according to the FBI). Should we bomb Chicago into oblivion? Build a wall around Chicago? Send them back where they came from? A couple of good Christian real Americans murdered 168 and injured 680 in America’s heartland of Oklahoma City to “get back” at the US government. 19 babies and children. Whatever.

    Certainly no “easy” answers, which is all we really want, and we’ll vote for any politician who offers them. Mission accomplished? Bring it on? Or perhaps we should listen to Uncle Albert:

    “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

    Naw, too hard. Lets just go with this:

    “You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your #$@%@# fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy.” So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie.” Tony Montana, Scarface.

  2. Still an extension to your inseam problem, in that, there’s been a push in thought to dismantle our wonderful country. To bring these people in now might just push this process along. Has it been okay for our Govt. over the years to be giving Billions of dollars to a lot of countries and our own cities and states, along with bridges and roads going to pot? Are all of our poorest people being taken care of? Why give so much in Aid to these countries and neglect our own country? Our leaders on both sides have been railroading us down this highway since at least President Reagan. Don’t worry about balancing the budget, we can just keep spending. Go down the basement and print more money. We should have the inseam standards in place in every area of life, but because we’ve gotten away from that the outcome isn’t very far away.

    1. John,

      The world has been rapidly changing since the time of President Reagan. Globalization and technology have shrunk the world and made the concept of the independent nation-state less viable as capital has chased cheap labor and natural resources where ever it could find them. This has made the world more inter-dependent, but also more dangerous. Policies have to take such conditions into account or else be considered obsolete before they are begun.

      We have been trying to have it both ways, mollifying the restless world with aid, while addicting our own underclass to social dependence. Accordingly, we have spent ourselves into serious debt with very few options to level the bubble.

      Wish it weren’t so, but sadly think it is. No more than the larger sweeps of the pendulum of history.

      Thanks for contributing.


  3. Well thought out and transcribed, Toni. No easy answers here, and we can’t stick our heads in the sand in either direction.

  4. Brilliant, Toni. Clear-thinking, reasonable arguments for and against any action we can take, which is the way of the world. There is seldom a completely “right” or “wrong” answer when it comes to situations like this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.