The organization who decided to sue the President over the travel ban has now leveled a stunning blow. This crushing disappointment comes from the decision to uphold the travel ban that would keep anyone without a “bonafide connected” to someone in the United States from entering.
Their gripe is that they are disappointed with the Supreme Court. Let’s break out the world’s smallest violin.
I’m sure this will really sway future decisions by the highest court in the land, considering that seeking the approval of every new social justice warrior organization is exactly what the Supreme Court was designed to do.
It may be time to consider the difference between being responsible for something and a person who could have stepped in and prevented it. One is an imperative and the other is a nice thing to do. Could the United States take in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees and improve their situation? Maybe.
It would probably destroy our country and even more, people would be left in the situation they’re in right now, but at least for a while we would feel good about ourselves and they’d have a roof over their heads.
However, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. It’s our responsibility first to make sure our own country isn’t at risk, and it’s believed by some of the greatest minds in the country that taking in this particular group would put us at too high a risk.
That might make some people uncomfortable, or feel like they’ve been given undue privilege, however, we shouldn’t put the country in jeopardy to assuage some of the first world guilt that’s going around.
Singing “Lean on me” isn’t going to change whether you blow up if the person you’re allowing to lean on you (or on me) is wearing a vest rigged with explosives.