Republicans, Syrian Refugees, and Veterans' Benefits

This scenario is all too common: U.S. Republicans or conservatives complain about something, while being ignorant to the fact that Republican politicians—the people they voted for—are the ones at fault. 

While there are always several examples of these at any given time, one of the big issues being discussed right now is that of Syrian refugees being allowed into the United States. Thousands of Syrians are fleeing the state of war in their home country brought on by extremist groups and the Syrian civil war itself (now in its fifth year) and entering European nations. (Keep in mind though how dangerous these journeys are, with lengthy and cold water crossings, border checks, food and drinking water shortages, and discrimination.) In the wake of jihadist attacks on several locations in the Middle East and North Africa, and the particularly cowardly attacks on Paris, other countries have started discussions about allowing these innocent refugees entry into their nations. Naturally, these discussions have sparked heated debates from politicians and citizens alike.

As the opening of this post mentions, many Republicans/conservatives are citing another problem that they believe we should work on fixing first, but they fail to see that the reason that problem exists in the first place is basically their own fault. The problem I'm referring to is the lack of care and support of U.S. military veterans here in the United States.

Here's an example of what's been circulating around the web and social media:

Okay, I think we could reasonably say that veterans should not be treated this way in the country that they risked their lives defending. Here's another one (notice how the number of homeless veterans is different in the two images):

Of course, many uneducated (but of course opinionated) social media users are blaming President Obama. Hmm, nope. Obama doesn't make laws; Congress does. Let's looks at who's really at fault.


Here's an article titled "The GOP on Veterans Issues." It breaks down how 2016 presidential hopefuls have dishonored America's veterans by constantly voting against their best interests: http://correctrecord.org/the-gop-on-veterans-issues/

This is a particularly sad article explaining how all but two Republican senators voted against increased benefits for veterans. Did you know that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman? https://bootheglobalperspectives.com/article/1440873828WBG143316144/all-but-two-republicans-vote-against-increased-benefits-for-veterans

Another: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/republicans-va-funding_b_5395698.html

Another one from Military Times: http://archive.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

And here's another recent one from November 11, 2015: http://usuncut.com/politics/happy-veterans-day-5-times-republicans-in-congress-screwed-veterans/


I could continue, but I think you see the point. So, Republicans who think how we treat veterans is wrong and who think it's Obama's fault, but who keep voting for money-crazed conservative politicians: please learn to ask the question "Why?" before jumping to conclusions.

Why are veterans treated this way? Why are there not laws or policies that help them? Why are certain politicians voting this way? Why do I vote the way I do? Why did I not know the truth before?

Finally, I would like to add some thoughts to consider about the Syrian refugees.

- First of all, I'm sensing a lot of contempt towards them, even though they are innocent people who are suffering and who are victims of unspeakable violence due to a warped interpretation of religion. I think Americans should have more empathy and imagine if their roles were reversed.

- Secondly, the U.S. screening process is quite rigorous as it is, with 18- to 24-month waits being common.

- Third, the fear that some jihadists might disguise themselves as refugees and slip into the U.S. is legitimate, but not likely to be a common occurrence. These young men have promises from their leaders of apartments and cars and are currently receiving benefits they can't get in other places. For instance, there is a sex trade that exists among these extremist militants and access to sizable amounts of money. Realistically, the threat of one of these fighters slipping into the U.S. to commit an act of terror is probably no more or even less than the threats that have plagued U.S. society for decades now: domestic terror committed by right-wing extremists or mentally unstable gun owners (think of the Aurora, CO theater shooting, the black church murders in South Carolina, and the numerous school shootings, to name but a few).

- Fourth, people are not considering why these young men (and some young women) are turning to jihadism. It's primarily because of hopelessness; they have a lack of hope for a decent life due to dysfunctional governments that fail to provide basic needs, security, rule of law, education, and a functioning economy with job opportunities. With this in mind, the fact that some of the Paris attackers were from a poor town in Belgium called Molenbeek makes more sense. Moreover, other fighters have come from war-torn Syria, the essentially governmentless Libya (there was seemingly no plan for a new government after rebels killed Gaddafi in the streets), and other poorly functioning regions. When this world seems hopeless, one is much more susceptible to following a path that will lead to paradise in another world, thus being sucked into warped and grossly misinterpreted religious dogma. So, if refugees do come here and have a decent living situation, with the above-mentioned needs met, defecting to extremism will be less likely.

- Lastly, don't choose to live in fear.