Via the Washington Blade:
Despite anger with three gay and bisexual U.S. House members for voting with Republicans to block Syrian refugees from entering the United States, the head of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund says the organization won’t drop support for the lawmakers in the upcoming election.
Well, that’s big of her.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who’s gay; Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), who’s gay, and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who’s bisexual, were among the 47 House Democrats who voted for the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, or H.R. 4038, which passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House last week. The bill would expand background checks on Iraqi and Syrian refugees hoping to enter the United States, but critics say the legislation would have the effect of barring them entirely.
So, the lead is actually misleading, since the measure will only “block Syrian refugees from entering the United States” if you uncritically accept the critics’ viewpoint.
Some LGBT advocates rebuked Polis, Maloney and Sinema for their “yes” votes, arguing members of the LGBT community should support another community facing persecution. Among those critics is Michelangelo Signorile, a New York-based LGBT advocate who said on his Facebook page the votes are “totally shameful” and the Victory Fund “should dump” the three lawmakers.
“Equality should be litmus test of anyone in ‘LGBT Equality Caucus’ in Congress,” Signorile said. “And realize that these individuals voted against desperate LGBT Syrian refugees — there was hope 500 of the refugee spaces would be set aside for them.”
What universe do LGBT progressives like Signorile live in that they seriously think 500 spots were going to be designated for LGBT Syrian refugees?
The debate of refugee acceptance isn’t black and white, and that’s especially true regarding disagreements about the level of scrutiny refugees should undergo. Also, polls have shown that immigrants from Muslim countries are heavily homophobic in their attitudes—that’s simply a fact, as noted here, and here, for instance.
That’s not to say the U.S. shouldn’t accept Syrian refugees, but the issue isn’t as simplistic as demagogues on both the progressive left and the anti-immigrant right are convinced it is.
More. As a coda, the Washington Post reports Gay asylum seekers face threat from fellow refugees in Europe:
What followed over the next several weeks, though, was abuse — both verbal and physical — from other refugees, including an attempt to burn Ktifan’s feet in the middle of the night. The harassment ultimately became so severe that he and two other openly gay asylum seekers were removed from the refugee center with the aid of a local gay activist group and placed in separate accommodations across town..
19 Comments for “Syrian Refugees and the Gay Question”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So, the lead is actually misleading, since the measure will only “block Syrian refugees from entering the United States” if you uncritically accept the critics viewpoint.
Well, the critics and Republican Presidential candidates, both. As Marco Rubio explained on Fox News Sunday, the bill would effectively block most refugees:
The debate of refugee acceptance isn’t black and white, and that’s especially true regarding disagreements about the level of scrutiny refugees should undergo.
You are right about that.
I can’t say that I’ve been following the issue as it has played out in the LGBT press, but I have been following it as it played out in the Jewish and conservative Christian press. In both, division is evident.
It seems that gays and lesbians are, like other Americans, divided on the issue of Syrian refugees. I’m not surprised. Gays and lesbians — even “progressive” gays and lesbians who march in goose step toward the goal of destroying Christianity and civilization as we know it — seldom agree on most issues, including LGBT issues. Who would have thunk it?
Also, polls have shown that immigrants from Muslim countries are heavily homophobic in their attitudes—that’s simply a fact, as noted here, and here, for instance.
But that’s solved, right? Even the “moderates” in the Republican Party — Jeb Bush comes to mind — seem to think we should separate the religious sheep from the goats, admitting Christians but not Muslims. So if we don’t admit Muslims, what matters their homophobia? And even if we did admit Muslims, how much homophobia would be added to this country’s population, given the number of conservative Christians already in country and active politically?
What universe do LGBT progressives like Signorile live in that they seriously think 500 spots were going to be designated for LGBT Syrian refugees?
I have no idea, but 500 is 5% of 10,000, so it isn’t unreasonable to hope that if gays and lesbians weren’t actively excluded through the vetting process, roughly 500 of the 10,000 admitted as refugees would be gays and lesbians.
The administration would be insane to announce a quota for gays and lesbians. It would create a “perfect storm” scenario, uniting and energizing the dregs of the Republican base (the anti-immigrant demagogues, the anti-Muslim demagogues, the anti-gay demagogues and the anti-quota demagogues) as nothing else could in this election cycle.
posted by Jorge on
Personally I think we should admit them even though I am dead certain it will facilitate the loss of American lives through terrorism. It’s a numbers game for me.
And that’s why I’ll never be president. Our government has to put American lives first.
But NYC Police Commissioner Bill Bratton commented that we can identify at least 10,000 Syrians we know information on, so he would like to see the ones admitted drawn from that group.
Also, polls have shown that immigrants from Muslim countries are heavily homophobic in their attitudes
That doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the terrorism threat.
In fact I think it’s perfectly fitting that the issue is dividing Democratic and Republican governors. Dump ’em all in New York City. We have one of the most patronizing and didactic governments in the US, well, at least on the East Coast. I’d be a very good fit. “Send your kids to school! Act more American or we’ll send Child Protective Services to your school! Look for a job and prove you’re doing it by coming into our office whenever we mail you or we’ll cut you off of TANF! I’m from the government and I’m here to help!” It takes a lot of discipline and nurturing to turn people away from terrorism and toward integration and I think NYC fits the bill a bit better than most (schools aren’t very good, though).
posted by Houndentenor on
The most bizarre argument I heard last week is that we can’t let any Syrian refugees in because they might be terrorists and once here they would be able to buy weapons. And we know this because people on the terror watch list have been buying guns using the gun show loophole. So why haven’t we done anything about this? Because the NRA cares more about profits for gun manufacturers than it does for gun owners or our country overall.
I’m sick of the so-called Christians and their xenophobia and bigotry. I’m sure turning away people feeling from a war zone is what Jesus would do. The right doesn’t even have the sense to be ashamed for the hateful crap they say. See Jorge above.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And we know this because people on the terror watch list have been buying guns using the gun show loophole.
Oh, it is much worse than that, Houdentenor. It is perfectly legal for persons on the terrorist watch list to purchase weapons, including assault weapons, even without the gun shop loophole.
President Bush introduced a bill to prohibit people on the watch list from buying guns, and the bill was roundly defeated. Ditto for every bill introduced since then, and we can expect the same this year, I suspect. The Obama administration deserves no credit for failing to fight this battle.
posted by Jorge on
So why haven’t we done anything about this? Because the NRA cares more about profits for gun manufacturers than it does for gun owners or our country overall.
Oh, please. That’s like saying PETA cares more about Green Giant sales than about animals.
I’m sick of the so-called Christians and their xenophobia and bigotry.
Are you sure you didn’t contract sepsis from biting yourself?
The right doesn’t even have the sense to be ashamed for the hateful crap they say. See Jorge above.
Well at least he didn’t call me conservative.
There’s nothing hateful about my sarcastic put-downs of Bill de Blasio and the Progressives. They’re useful lost causes, and sometimes they’re even right. The country needs them. If people have a problem with how I see progressivism, I suggest they move someplace where New York is sleeping when they’re awake.
But this country is not a Christian nation. And for all that you complain about those who believe so strongly that they will fight for their views to be made into law, I think it is rather self-serving and hypocritical of you to complain about the one time I decide “Hmm, you know what, I’m a religious nut and proud of it, but I think this time I’ll step back and let the realists win.”
posted by Mark F. on
Well, we know that anyone on the “terrorist watch list” must be guilty and deprived of their rights, don’t we? Because the government never makes an error.
By the way, there is no “gun show loophole.” Registered gun dealers must do background checks on gun buyers, regardless of where the guns are sold. However, there is no requirement for a background check if you, as an individual , sell or give away a gun to a friend or relative.
posted by Jorge on
I thought that was the gun show loophole. Have a one-time garage sale in your own neighborhood. Everyone knows Stupid Sam and Smelly Sally. It’s okay if they have a one-time fire sale. Speaking of fires, we at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory can assure you our building has been examined by the fire inspector and declared to be safe.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is important not to confuse things, Mark. You are conflating two questions.
The first question is whether and under what circumstances private (that is, unlicensed) sellers should be required to run a background check under federal law.
As you point out, the locus of a sale is not at the heart of the “gun show loophole”, which is inaccurate shorthand for the private sale exemption to firearms laws. The question in the “gun show loophole” is whether and under what circumstances private sales should require a federal background check, which is a simple process that takes a few minutes to complete. The reason that the private exemption has become known as the “gun show loophole” is that gun shows are a locus for high-volume private sellers, but Armslist and other online vehicles are also used for this purpose.
The second question is whether or not the “terrorist watch list” should be included in the records checked during the federal background check, and under what circumstances persons included on that list should be prohibited from purchasing firearms.
With respect to the first question (the “gun show loophole”), my view is that a federal background check should be required for all firearms sales to other than family members. The risk/benefit analysis of private firearms sales bears out the conclusion that a high percentage of firearms illegally obtained are obtained through private sales to non-family members, and that the number of firearms illegally obtained is significant and presents a significant problem for law enforcement.
With respect to the second question (the “terrorist watch list”), I agree with you that the list maintained by the federal government is scandalously inaccurate and unreliable, and I agree with civil libertarians fighting to force the government to curtail the list. The watch list includes roughly a million people who are suspected by the government, for one reason or another, often specious, of some involvement with terrorism. The “terrorist watch list” is to be distinguished from the “no-fly list”, which includes about 50,000 people, and the “secondary screening list”, which includes more but nowhere near a million.
I’m of two minds about that question. On the one hand, I think that the “terrorist watch list” is a scandal, and of little practical use as a tool to fight terrorism. The risk to civil liberties, in my opinion, far outweighs the benefits. On the other hand, I think that a list of suspected terrorists, properly limited and curtailed, would be a useful tool, and I find it an odd result that we would curtail the right to travel freely for such people but allow them to purchase firearms without a red flag being raised.
I see both the question of firearms versus civil liberties and the question of fighting terrorism versus civil liberties through a risk/benefit filter.
With respect to firearms versus civil liberties, the United States has a high (relative to other countries) rate of firearms-related deaths (12,000 homicides, 20,000 suicides, 500 accidental/other) , but the number is, to my mind, small in comparison to the cost to civil liberties from undue restrictions on gun ownership. I support reasonable efforts to restrict firearms purchase/ownership to mentally stable non-criminals, and I support making a distinction between environments (e.g. hunting firearms and personal protection weapons versus assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition), but I would stop at that point. To my mind, the “panic incidents” (e.g. Sandy Hook) are not useful for analysis because the incidents, although highly publicized and heart-wrenching, are rare and do not account for a significant number of firearms-related deaths. We need to look, instead, to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill incidents, the drip-drip-drip side of the equation, if we are to develop a rational firearms versus civil liberties legal environment. To my mind, requiring a federal background check for all firearms sales except for private sales to family members is a rational step in that direction.
With respect to terrorism versus civil liberties, I use a similar risk/benefit analysis. The risk from terrorist incidents is small (compare the number of Americans killed in domestic terrorist incidents during the last two decades with the number of firearms-related deaths during the same period, and you’ll get the picture) and does not, to my mind, justify widespread and large-scale intrusions into civil liberties. The random nature of deaths related to terrorist incidents induces a panic reaction in Americans, and I think that it is unwarranted. To my mind, HB 2048 is the result of a panic reaction, and the cure is worse than the disease.
Senator Rubio, it seems to me, accurately characterized the bill as a means of keeping Syrian refugees out of the country. To my mind, that is the wrong reaction, and puts lives at risk. The bill adds nothing useful to the screening process, adds nothing to the risk/benefit equation, and I’m glad that my representative in Congress, Mark Pocan, voted against the bill.
posted by Jorge on
gun shows are a locus for high-volume private sellers
Oh, that’s what gun shows are?
*Neutral.*
To my mind, requiring a federal background check for all firearms sales except for private sales to family members is a rational step in that direction.
In the absence of this rational step being politically feasible, it seems the NY Daily News and others have thrown their weight around an aesthetically pleasing crutch which the NRA sees as in the same discredited line of therapy. I suppose I could credit their concern that the whatever-list is unreliable, but I don’t actually consider that relevant; that can be litigated in court.
Hmm, anyway, come to think of it I don’t our more deadly (radical Islamic) terror attacks on American soil have involved firearms. Fort Hood, maybe, but that was by a soldier. The others have involved bombs. The ones involving firearms, people got stopped quickly.
*Against.*
Workplace and school violence incidents, now those have become pretty brutal.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: … gun shows are a locus for high-volume private sellers …
Jorge: Oh, that’s what gun shows are?
Gun shows attract licensed dealers, as well, but generally do not (because of the cost involved in renting space and set-up) attract private sellers with only a firearm or two to sell.
I don’t know if you attend gun shows. I don’t, much, but I do go to two or three a year with friends as recreation, and I’ve noticed that almost all sellers, licensed or unlicensed have at least a dozen firearms for sale. Few have less than half a dozen.
The line between licensed dealers and unlicensed private sellers is a subjective line, making the distinction between “trade or business” and “hobby” sellers:
The NRA and others who oppose background checks for private sales (see Mark above) typically contrast licensed dealers and individuals who “sell or give away a gun to a friend or relative”. The categories exclude two important segments of the firearms market:
(1) private sellers who sell in volume but don’t do so as a primary trade or business or primary source of livelihood; and
(2) private sellers who don’t sell in volume, but who sell to strangers.
Most of the volume sellers sell online (e.g. Armslist) or at gun shows. Most of the other private sellers sell in person or online, but don’t sell at gun shows.
I don’t have a problem with an individual selling a firearm to a family member or friend without necessitating a background check, although a background check is so simple as to be painless.
The question I raise is whether a background check should be required when a private seller does not personally know the buyer, and has no information about the buyer other than what the buyer divulges at the time of sale. It seems to me that would be prudent. Others — Mark and you, for example — disagree. So be it.
I buy and sell through a licensed dealer, almost always. I don’t mind the background check, and I prefer that anyone who purchases a weapon that I own is put through a background check, and in the case of a handgun, a waiting period. I do make exceptions if I know a person well, but seldom.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t know if you attend gun shows.
It’s not me.
When I get too old to defend myself by running I’ll learn stick fighting.
The question I raise is whether a background check should be required when a private seller does not personally know the buyer, and has no information about the buyer other than what the buyer divulges at the time of sale. It seems to me that would be prudent. Others — Mark and you, for example — disagree. So be it.
From the way you frame it, I neither agree nor disagree. I really thought gun shows were a commercial venue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: I don’t know if you attend gun shows.
Jorge: It’s not me. When I get too old to defend myself by running I’ll learn stick fighting.
Come out to the rest of America, where trees grow free in forests instead of carefully cultivated “green spaces”, and guns are an adjunct of life, used for hunting, varmint control, and other useful purposes, instead of being kept in biometric gun safes, hidden for away for possible use if a meth-head breaks down a triple-locked apartment door.
Years ago, before paranoia set in, the NRA was focused primarily on hunting, not personal defense, and supported reasonable and rational efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
You’d never know it now, but there was a time when NRA literature wasn’t focused on triple-carry concealed weapons and blasting the bad guys straight to hell, and debate about gun issues wasn’t controlled by the preppers. NRA literature was focused on hunting, safety and responsible ownership, and the debate about gun issues was focused on keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal and the crazy.
Hell, there was even a time when the NRA didn’t post notices that its headquarters is a “gun free zone”, and the NRA didn’t feel the need to put up metal detectors in any room where Wayne LaPierre spreads the NRA gospel that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
The debate over gun laws is controlled by the NRA, a paid arm of the firearms manufacturers, and by morons who buy into it out of fear. I swear that half the conservatives who beat the “no restrictions on firearms” drum have never actually used a firearm, long gun or handgun, for anything useful.
posted by Kosh III on
“I’m sick of the so-called Christians and their xenophobia and bigotry.”
Me too. I see it all the time here in the homeland of the Southern Bigot….er…Baptist Convention.
Jorge maybe does not see it because he lives in a comfy blue state where reason is somewhat more prevalent. I’d suggest he spend a few weeks in Sylacauga AL or Bugtussle TN (real place) Or have coffee with Kim Davis.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge maybe does not see it because he lives in a comfy blue state where reason is somewhat more prevalent.
And that should concern me why? Local problems are local issues, unless you can prove otherwise.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29)
Sure. Prop 8 became a national issue.
The localized bigotry of Kosh’s neighbors?
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I noticed the fate of LGBT Iraqis is still a minor footnote of concern for homocons who sang the praises of the neo con doctrine.
The bill is mostly for voters who want to feel safer, rather then actually be safer.
posted by Jorge on
Well that’s by definition. We can save 500 GLBT lives quite easily by blowing ISIS into the stone age, but that’s not why we should do it. Nor is the fact we can save them just as easily by not going to war why we shouldn’t.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
jorge
um. no. But its almost cute that you think that
posted by Jorge on
You think I should base my domestic and foreign policy arguments on the fate of 500 LGBT Iraqis, or you think military intervention will be counterproductive?
Our military leaders are losing their hair playing yet another simulation of leading the bull through the Middle Eastern powder keg shop. I don’t have a problem with presidents listening to military leaders try to give their best advice. But there are two decision points here. One is how to do the least harm. The other is what is our goal in the first place.
If we can save lives without military action, that’s an important reason not to go to war. But now the reverse consideration is in play, as accepting Syrian refugees is now considered dangerous and politically infeasible. We should not lose sight of the value of human life. If we cannot save lives without military action, then we should go to war to protect them.
In my opinion, it is worthwhile for gays to be able to report the facts of how world events effect GLBT people so that we and other leaders can take these facts into consideration when making political decisions. I do not believe that we should base political decisions about world events on how they impact GLBT people collaterally unless those effects have a disproportionate and unjust effect unique to GLBT people.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge
You asked: You think I should base my domestic and foreign policy arguments on the fate of 500 LGBT Iraqis, or you think military intervention will be counterproductive?
I think that should base your arguments on the facts, maybe even a love of America (“bring me your tired….” However, since that is clearly not on the table (an issue for folks on both sides of the aisle, mind you)
LGBT people in Syria and Iraq are one of the groups of people being targeted for death by the ruling government/vigilante groups. I am not a naive person. I realize that human rights and humanitarian concerns are rarely going to be the sole reason for major foreign policy decisions (especially when dealing with LGBT people), but LGBT people in America might want to show some concern for LGBT people elsewhere…and if human rights and humanitarian concerns are totally divorced from American foreign policy, bad things tend to happen.
So, what was your suggestion? Well, you basically made the argument that if we bombed ISIS, it would save LGBT people. Unfortunately, the human rights and humanitarian problems are a bit more complicated then just getting rid of one group of bad guys.
You said: If we can save lives without military action, that’s an important reason not to go to war.
If we do nothing — which has never been an option — ISIL will eventually create its own little solidified country (like, say Taliban Afghanistan). This is not a good scenario for a number of reasons — human rights, security and the like.