It seems to me to be grandstanding. Because it seems too little, too late. I'm a very practical man. And I'm also firmly rooted in reality. I try to view things from a rational point of view instead of an emotional one. The reality is that Muslims are pouring into the U.S. and Europe from several different Middle-Eastern nations. But Syria is being singled out. I'm not sure how much terrorism in America is committed by Syrians. But it seems odd to me to refuse to take them now. Not that I'm in favor of them continuing to come here. But it seems that limiting Muslim immigration to just Syrians doesn't really guarantee anything.
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. One of the wealthiest nations on Earth that's not at war. Another two were from the United Arab Emirates (another fabulously wealthy nation at peace) and another was from Egypt, which is a U.S. ally. They all entered the United States legally, lived here among us peacefully while they prepared to kill as many as possible in the most spectacular terrorist attack in human history. Different nations, but one religion.
The Tsarnaev brothers immigrated to America as muslim refugee children with their parents. They were taken in as refugees, enjoyed the safety and protection of the United States, helped themselves to government assistance including welfare and food stamps and student loans and grants to go to college. All the while, the brothers planned to wage jihad against innocent civilians. They detonated a homemade bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing and injuring spectators and athletes. A different nation yet again, but the same religion.
Hasna Aitboulahcen was the child of Moroccan immigrants to France. Her friends and neighbors described her as helpful and peaceful. A completely Westernized happy Muslim who liked to wear cowboy hats. They all expressed shock when they learned that she was a terrorist and helped carry out the bloody attacks in Paris on November 13th, 2015. She idolized the Charlie Hebdo terrorist murderers and professed her support for ISIS. When she was tracked down by police she screamed at officers and detonated her suicide vest blowing herself up and collapsing part of the building she was cornered in. Again, different country but the same religion.
In Kentucky, federal law enforcement arrested two Iraqi "refugees" on terrorism charges after they tried to purchase machine guns and other heavy weaponry to kill Americans. Both were al Qaeda members who'd killed Americans in Iraq.
Hassan was actually a natural-born American citizen and Aitboulahcan was a natural-born French citizen. But none of that mattered. They seethed with hatred for their own birthplace and the people who took in their parents. Many nations. Different statuses. Immigrants, students, natural-born, naturalized...one religion. One final result.
So Indiana Governor Mike Pence and 20-some other state governors' refusal to take in Syrian refugees seems oddly specific to me. My initial reaction was "why have you been allowing them up to now?" Another question is the ultimate effectiveness of keeping them from settling in Indiana. Other places in the U.S. are welcoming as many Syrians as will come. Once they're in the U.S., what's to keep them from coming to one of the states where they were initially denied? Nothing. Finally, I'm not sure what good it does to limit one's objection to just Syrian refugees. The terror attacks have come from Muslims of all nationalities and backgrounds.
Like insisting that one particular sub-species of piranha not be dropped into your corner of the swimming pool while allowing every other species to be dumped in by the truckload. And the offending species is being freely released in other parts of the pool. If the goal is to keep your citizens from being attacked, such weak demands - no matter how strenuously made - will ultimately have no effect on their safety. It just seems like pointless grandstanding.