One would think in the aftermath of Paris and the still-recent memory of Boston, that it would behoove the Left in politics and media to stop pretending that there’s no serious security concern regarding thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugees suddenly seeking entrance in the U.S.

One would think. But the talking point has been that any question, any interruption in the relocation of refugees is just unchristian hatred, not measured care for everyone and their neighbors in trying to balance the increasingly difficult — difficult because there is an apocalyptic, nihilistic death cult openly proclaiming its desire to kill and maim innocent Americans and Westerners going about their daily lives — responsibilities to remain the land open to the world’s “tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and to protect this nation of immigrants from a terrorist Trojan horse deliberately seeking to exploit that openness for bloody mayhem by hiding among the truly needy.

Portraying the refugees as just like baby Jesus or the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany is truculently and offensively to oversimplify a very complex problem into the much easier one that the Left would prefer: why, it’s just conservatives “hating” people again. (A previous attempt to oversimplify the very complex problem into an easier one the Left would prefer was, why, it’s all because of global warming.)

But let’s test the talking point. Is it really the case that states, including North Carolina, are refusing Syrian refugees because they’re uncharitable bastards, and not because they comprehend wider security implications than are allowed to be perceived according to present Leftist political dictates?

Here is a map provided by Newsweek of the states that have so far refused the refugees (in red). I have merely included those states’ ranks in charitable giving via The Chronicle of Philanthropy (1=most charitable).

Charitable giving ranks included:

charity and refugees

Politics needs to be better, to start from the idea that differing views generally tend to seek the best outcome for people under differing approaches to measuring what is best. With that framework, coalitions can be built and perhaps early foes can be persuaded. Trying to browbeat opponents into agreement through the shrieking and repetition of blatantly obvious untruths won’t work and will only lead to retrenchment, though perhaps it gives some sophomoric satisfaction to the shriekers.

I do not pretend to know the right answer, the proper balance regarding this issue. I doubt any pundit immediately does — there are too many issues to consider, procedures to follow, and so forth. Looking before leaping seems to be the safest approach.

Being a murky issue provides no excuse for using it for cheap-shot personal attacks. Whether or not you’re among those for whom nothing is more important than politics, there are lives at stake, whether immigrants’ or immigrants’ children’s or both.